freight_calculate_tolls

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: a cost of $0.10 USDC per call. It also implies the tool returns an estimate. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or how errors (e.g., invalid polyline) are handled, which leaves notable gaps.

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?

The description is two short sentences that convey the core purpose and the cost. Every word is necessary, with no padding or repetition of schema details. It is front-loaded with the main action and then provides the cost caveat.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain the 'toll_maneuvers' parameter, the return format, or any prerequisites (e.g., navigating to a route). Given the tool's moderate complexity, more behavioral and parameter context is needed.

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?

The description clarifies that 'axle count' and 'vehicle height' refer to 'axles' and 'height_ft', giving them context. However, it does not mention 'toll_maneuvers', and with schema coverage only at 25%, the description should compensate more. The polyline parameter is already documented in the schema, so the net addition is partial.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: estimating tolls for a known route polyline, with specific inputs (axle count and vehicle height). It uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('tolls for a known route polyline'), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools that handle document parsing or government data.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the user already has a polyline, but does not mention that freight_truck_route could generate one, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks any 'use this when' or 'instead of' references.

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