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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write operation. The description adds the important state transition ('it moves to shipped') and the paid-order precondition, but does not mention side effects, error handling, or permission requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is concise, but the structure is awkward and fragmentary ('Seller: the carrier, tracking and ETA...'). The lack of an explicit verb makes it less front-loaded and harder to parse than necessary.

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 write operation with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It states the core effect and paid-order precondition, but omits important context such as required fields, what happens if the order is not paid, and how tracking and ETA are handled.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining the four parameters. It only repeats the field names and adds that the order is paid; it does not explain formats, required versus optional status, or what values are expected for carrier, tracking, and ETA.

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 conveys the core action: recording carrier, tracking, and ETA for a paid order and transitioning it to shipped. It is clear enough to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling ship_quote.

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 phrase 'of a paid order' implies a precondition and intended context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus ship_quote, order_status, or other order-related siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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