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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the important behavioral boundary that only tracker metadata is returned, not events or status. This goes beyond the schema by setting expectations about response scope, though it does not discuss error behavior or lookup failure handling.

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 sentences, no filler. The core operation and key distinction from get_tracking_results are front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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 simple single-resource read with a full output schema, read-only annotations, and a clear sibling pointer, the description is complete. An agent can correctly invoke the tool and understand what it will get back without needing additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well documented with descriptions and an enum. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only restating that searchBy alters interpretation of trackerId. Per the baseline, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a single tracker'), and distinguishes this from get_tracking_results by stating it returns metadata only. It also clearly differentiates from list_trackers by focusing on a single tracker rather than a list.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use get_tracking_results for events and status, which is a direct when-to-use/alternative statement. It also clarifies the dual lookup modes via trackerId and clientTrackerId, giving clear context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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