Get shipping information for SIIL Ostomy orders.
Returns shipping zones, delivery times, and carriers.
SIIL ships from Spain (EU) and USA warehouses.
Args:
country_code: ISO 2-letter country code (e.g. "US", "DE", "JP").
If provided, returns the specific zone for that country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_code | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data categories returned and the fact that shipping depends on EU and USA warehouse origins. It does not disclose rate limits or whether the open-world lookup is live, which keeps it from a 5.
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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into a concise summary plus an Args section. Every sentence contributes either scope, return content, or parameter meaning.
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 read-only, single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It states the scope, return categories, warehouse context, and optional parameter behavior, so an agent can call it correctly without needing more.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It does so well: country_code is documented as an ISO 2-letter code with examples ("US", "DE", "JP") and an explicit conditional behavior when provided versus omitted.
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 and resource (get shipping information) scoped to SIIL Ostomy orders, and enumerates what is returned: shipping zones, delivery times, carriers, and warehouse origins. This clearly distinguishes it from the product, blog, category, and store-info sibling tools.
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 establishes the context: SIIL Ostomy orders, with warehouses in Spain and the USA. It also explains that supplying a country code narrows the result to that country's zone. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but there are no obvious sibling alternatives for shipping information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.