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

The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond the read-only annotation: it specifies the default fields (InsuranceType, Delivery.Signature, Delivery.Residential), the carrier-specific Options tree via DetailLevel, and the HTTP 409 error for cancelled/split orders. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 two compact sentences with the main action first, followed by optional behavior and an error condition. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, optional detail level), the presence of an output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential behavioral facts including an error case. It is complete for agent use.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a bit more specificity on field names but doesn't introduce new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 'Retrieve' as a specific verb and 'current shipping options for an order' as the resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like teapplix_set_order_ship_options, which modifies options.

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 explains default behavior and the DetailLevel parameter for carrier-specific options, and notes the HTTP 409 condition for cancelled or split orders, providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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