moving_recommend_truck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the packing-efficiency model (0.70-0.85, override via efficiency), that U-Haul payloads are unpublished so weight is not checked and a known_payload_alternative is offered, that capacities are approximations, and that no prices are returned. It stops short of stating read-only/non-mutating behavior explicitly, but the operation is clearly a computation.

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, then layers constraints and special cases. Dense but every clause (input modes, efficiency, U-Haul caveat, deprecated alias, no prices) adds real information.

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?

Returns are covered by the output schema, and the description still flags noteworthy output behavior (size_range, known_payload_alternative, 'payload not published' summary). Mutually exclusive inputs and unit ambiguity via schema are addressed; only the undocumented units/providers/weight_unit parameters keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains estimate_id, estimate, volume_cuft, weight, box_fraction, efficiency, and the weight_lb alias, but leaves units, weight_unit, and providers undocumented in either place. Useful but incomplete against the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pick the smallest rental truck or van for a load, by volume AND payload') and names the providers considered. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like moving_recommend_container or moving_recommend_storage.

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?

Explicitly states the accepted input modes ('Pass estimate_id (or the dict) from moving_estimate_*, or bare volume_cuft / weight / box_fraction') and the mutual exclusion ('not both an estimate and volume_cuft'), which routes the agent correctly. It does not, however, say when to choose this tool over moving_recommend_container, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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