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

With annotations already declaring destructive and read-only hints, the description adds that the tool is disabled in demo and that it returns a tracking number and label URL. It clearly communicates the real-world side effect of creating a physical shipment, though it doesn't discuss idempotency or reversibility.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and outputs without filler. The demo-disabled prefix is brief and useful context.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description states the key outputs (tracking number and label URL), and the schema covers all parameters. It could mention the prerequisite of using quote_shipping to select a provider, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

All 13 parameters have schema descriptions, so the description does not need to explain them. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specifies the action ('Creates a physical shipment'), the resource, and the outcomes (tracking number and label URL). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quote_shipping and track_shipment.

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 implies a courier must be chosen but doesn't explicitly instruct the agent to call quote_shipping first or state when not to use this tool. The provider source is only indicated in the schema, not in the description itself.

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