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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the MCP pre-checks current WAPI order status and fee data before executing, which tells the agent the call may be refused based on external state. The destructive/irreversible nature is already declared by destructiveHint=true, so omission there is acceptable, but the description never says what actually changes on the marketplace once tracking is generated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the precondition is stated before the confirmation requirement. Internal jargon ('HGRApi Header channel') costs a little clarity for minimal gain.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, the description covers preconditions but not outcomes: it does not say whether tracking generation marks the order line as dispatched or what failure looks like when WAPI disallows. The output schema carries the return shape, so that gap is excusable.

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 confirmation semantics for 'confirmed' and 'channelOAuthId' are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'Requires confirmed=true' and notes the channel is resolved internally, adding little beyond that.

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 specific verb and resource ('Generates HGR tracking') scoped to 'exact order lines' with a WAPI precondition. However, it never distinguishes itself from the nearly identical sibling hgr_post_sales_generatetrackingid or from hgr_set_manual_tracking_id, so an agent cannot route confidently between them from the description alone.

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?

'when WAPI allows it' and 'Requires confirmed=true' imply preconditions, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for the manual-tracking path. The agent must infer selection from sibling names.

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