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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral fact: the call returns a shipment_id that feeds request_action. However, it never explains what notifying the human actually means (immediate message? queued?), whether the shipment is persisted and listable via list_shipments, or how open_mode='never' behaves.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action first and the follow-up routing second. No filler, and the useful return-value hint is packed into a parenthetical.

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 tool with eight optional parameters, near-zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are far too thin. The agent cannot tell why all parameters are optional, what happens if tracking/sender are omitted, or what the call returns besides shipment_id.

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?

Eight parameters with only 13% schema description coverage, yet the description addresses only 'tracking' ('tracking number helps') and says nothing about sender, carrier, expected_at, instructions, description, or the open_mode enum. The semantics of open_mode ('standard' vs 'same_day' vs 'never') are especially opaque and are the main thing an agent would need explained.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (announce an inbound shipment to the human) and names the sibling request_action that consumes the returned shipment_id. It does not distinguish itself from contact_human or send_message, which could plausibly overlap, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context ('something is on its way') and explicitly hands off the follow-up case to request_action with the returned shipment_id. No when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions are offered, so it falls short of a 5.

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