wafle_shipping_rates_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds value by specifying that the tool 'Returns one row per available carrier' with a list of carriers and the cost+ETA fields. This discloses output behavior beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with front-loaded primary purpose and a second sentence for usage guidance. No redundant information; every sentence contributes value.

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 read-only idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior, carrier list, and return fields. It omits edge cases like no carriers available or optional subtotal, but the annotations and simple return shape make the description adequate.

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 50% (slug and subtotal have descriptions). The description mentions 'destination + cart' and the debugging use case, but does not detail item structure, destination field requirements, or the optionality of subtotal. It adds marginal meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema's nested objects remain self-explanatory by name.

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 'Quote shipping rates for a destination + cart' with a specific verb and resource, enumerates the considered carriers (andreani, oca, viacargo, retiro, gratis), and specifies the return shape (cost + ETA). This clearly distinct from sibling tools like wafle_shipping_carriers_status by focusing on rate quotes rather than carrier status.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'estimate before checkout' and 'debug why isn't carrier X showing up?'. This gives clear context for when to invoke. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is actionable and unambiguous.

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