get_carrier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful nuance with 'authorized' (access/entitlement scoping) and 'published' (only released profile versions are visible), but says nothing about not-found behavior or what happens when an edition is locked or superseded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup key is stated immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little for an agent to work with given the undocumented second parameter.

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 two-parameter read-only fetch with no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the unexplained edition_id and absent not-found/error semantics mean an agent cannot fully reason about call outcomes from the definition alone.

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 carry the meaning. It explains the required 'usdot' key implicitly ('by USDOT') but leaves 'edition_id' — a UUID with a pattern and no schema description — completely unaddressed, even though it clearly selects which published edition of the profile to read.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('an authorized carrier's published profile') scoped by USDOT, which is enough to tell it apart from list-style siblings like search_carriers at a glance. It stops short of naming that sibling or explaining what 'authorized' and 'published' qualify, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by USDOT' signals this is a known-key lookup rather than a search. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_carriers, and no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether the caller must have edition access).

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