freight_parse_ratecon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.10 USDC) and input formats (PDF or text), which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens on parse failure, auth requirements, or any unique side effects beyond the cost.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description enumerates the extracted fields, which is valuable. It also includes pricing and input flexibility. Lacks explicit details about error handling or output schema structure, but is reasonably complete for a parse tool with 4 parameters.

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 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds a list of extracted fields, which gives context for the 'text' and 'file_path' parameters, but does not clarify parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Parse a freight rate confirmation') and lists the extracted fields (load #, broker, rate, stops, equipment). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that parse other document types like BOLs or fuel receipts.

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?

The mode parameter hints at use cases ('fast=regex, llm=GPT-4o-mini, ocr=scanned/image OCR'), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling names make the document-type distinction obvious, so the guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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