Carrier Schedule Search

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns 'normalized schedules with upstream source metadata', which provides some context about the output. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, but given the annotations, the bar is lower. The description adds moderate value.

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 and criteria, followed by the return type. No redundant or extraneous information. Every word 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?

The tool has 18 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and zero required parameters. The description is brief and does not explain complex credential parameters, pagination (limit), provider selection, or fallback policies. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the main filtering parameters (origin/destination, carrier, cargo type, direct-only, date windows), but omits many technical parameters like limit, provider, credentialProfile, oneTimeCredential, fallbackPolicy, and coverageHint. The description adds some meaning but is insufficient to fully understand all 18 parameters.

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 it searches carrier sailing schedules and lists specific search criteria (origin/destination, carrier SCAC/name, cargo type, direct-only flag, departure/arrival windows). The verb and resource are explicit, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like vessel_schedule or schedule_delay_predict, even without explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as vessel_schedule or port_calls. There are no context hints or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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