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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains that the token is the credential and that only someone with the shared link can read the record. It also discloses the return contents, including the 10-stage lifecycle and dated event log, which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, credential requirement, return value summary, and read-only boundary. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the required input, authentication semantics, what the response contains, and what actions are out of scope. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 schema already describes the single parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying the accepted forms (full URL or bare token) and emphasizing that the token acts as the credential, which goes beyond the schema text.

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 and resource: 'Read the live tracking record for a booked shipment.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings check_offer_status and generate_offer by focusing on shipment tracking rather than offer status or creation.

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 states when to use the tool (for a booked shipment when you have the tracking link) and explicitly when not to use it ('to change a booking or ask a question, email hello@plainfreight.com'). This gives the agent a clear decision boundary and an alternative path.

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