search_carriers

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from the 'published' catalog, which is genuine scoping context beyond the annotations. It says nothing about pagination, result caps, or matching semantics for the free-text query.

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, and the resource is established immediately. It is efficient but under-specified rather than tight, so it stops short of a 5.

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 search with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema required, the essentials are present. But against a three-parameter schema with a large nested filter object at 0% description coverage, the description leaves an agent guessing at most filter field meanings and expected return shape.

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% for a deeply nested filter object containing roughly fifteen fields (q, cargo, fleet, states, trucks, drivers, insurer, operations, entity_types, filing_types, census_status, classifications). The description names only three of them (state, classification, fleet) and gives no format guidance such as the two-letter state pattern or min/max range semantics, so it compensates for only a fraction of the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Search the published carrier catalog') plus a hint at filter scope, so an agent knows this is a catalog-wide search. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_carrier or search_edition, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_carrier (single-record lookup) or search_edition, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the multi-result search path.

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