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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the tool uses the official track.kazpost.kz source, that it is free, and that it returns 'status + route events'. While it doesn't explicitly state it is read-only, the verb 'track' implies no side effects, and the return content is specified.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences totaling 16 words. The purpose is stated immediately, and the added details (official source, return content, free) are valuable without being verbose.

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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and expected return content. It lacks mention of error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a straightforward tracking 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?

The input schema only defines a parameter named 'track' with a string type and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by indicating that the parameter is the barcode for the parcel, providing essential semantic meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Track'), the resource ('Kazakhstan Post parcel'), and the method ('by barcode'). It also distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the official source (track.kazpost.kz), which none of the siblings reference.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to track a Kazakhstan Post parcel using its barcode. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated to parcel tracking, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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