moving_recommend_container

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains hard weight limits for dense loads, the weight_binding flag semantics, the returned plan shape, and a data-provenance caveat (PODS capacities unverified, confirm with provider) plus 'No prices'. Only lacks finer caveats like error/edge behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose, then adds behavior and caveats in tight sentences with a concrete return example. Slightly dense but every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained (it explains them anyway). But for a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the input contract substantially undocumented, deferring to a sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, and the description documents none of them directly, deferring entirely to 'Input as in moving_recommend_truck'. The weight/volume phrasing hints at some fields but leaves parameters like estimate, estimate_id, efficiency, box_fraction, and families unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Pick') plus concrete resource ('portable moving containers (PODS 8/12/16 ft, U-Haul U-Box)') for a load, scoped by volume AND weight. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like moving_recommend_truck and moving_recommend_storage without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Frames the context (choosing containers for a load, with a weight-binding caveat) and points to 'Input as in moving_recommend_truck', but never states explicitly when to choose this over the truck/storage recommenders. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.