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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: what the error looks like for an unknown reference and which siblings it suggests, plus the fact that `events` controls how many actual events are returned. It stops short of describing pagination or size limits on route/latest_events, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose, use-case routing, parameter meanings, and return shape are front-loaded in that order, so the important routing decision comes before the long return-field list. The enumerated return fields are dense and somewhat list-like, but they earn their place given there is no output schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of documenting return values and does so field by field, including the null case for `route`. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained `company` parameter, which matters for a tool that can act across companies.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the `shipment` semantics (id, tracked reference, or container number) and the `events` range/default, adding only the nuance that these are 'actual' events. It says nothing about the third parameter, `company`, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource scope ('Everything about one shipment') and enumerates the contents: summary, route with POL/transshipments/POD, current position, carrier and predicted ETA, and latest events. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_shipment_events, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

It names the exact use case ('where is X' questions) and routes the full history case to get_shipment_events by name. It also states a fallback path for an unknown reference (list_shipments or track_shipment), which is an explicit alternative rather than an implied one.

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