freight_trip_telematics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a notable behavioral detail: the cost of $0.01 USDC per call. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects if any, or the output format. This is a simple compute operation, so risk is low, but the description leaves room for more transparency.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds the cost. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has nested objects and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return value, the exact behavior of the options, or any constraints on input pings. The description is too brief to fully guide an agent on invocation and interpretation of results.

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 only 50%. The description mentions 'array of GPS pings' which aligns with the 'pings' parameter, but it does not clarify the 'options' parameter (fuel_price, assumed_mpg) or the individual fields within pings (speed, fuelRateGph). It adds minimal value beyond what the schema already states, and fails to compensate for the undocumented options.

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 starts with 'Compute trip analytics' and specifies distance, idle, harsh events, and fuel burn. It clearly identifies the input as an array of GPS pings, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like freight_calculate_tolls or freight_parse_bol_pod that handle different resources.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have GPS ping data and need trip analytics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the input type and purpose are clear enough to guide selection. It lacks explicit 'use instead of' guidance, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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