warp_van_quote

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: 'firm price, 15-min expiry' indicates the quote's binding nature and limited validity. This informs the agent that the quote is not just a snapshot but a guaranteed offer that expires. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and key constraints efficiently. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With 8 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description would benefit from clarifying what the tool returns (e.g., price, reference number, expiry timestamp). While the description hints at output ('firm price, 15-min expiry'), it lacks explicit details about the response structure, which is needed for a quoting tool.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal new information about parameters. The description's mention of '1-3 pallets' aligns with the pallets parameter range, but does not elaborate beyond schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Quote a cargo van shipment (1-3 pallets, firm price, 15-min expiry)'. This clearly identifies the resource (cargo van shipment), the action (quote), and key constraints (pallet range, price type, expiry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like warp_box_truck_quote or warp_ltl_quote by specifying cargo van and pallet limits.

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 implies usage for cargo van shipments with 1-3 pallets, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different shipment sizes. The sibling tools (box truck, FTL, LTL) are related but not referenced.

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