teapplix_get_zonesCalculate carrier shipping zones between origin and destination ZIP codes. Each route returns its computed Zone or an Error sub-object explaining why zone lookup failed. [DEMO]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routes | Yes | Array of route objects. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral detail by stating that each route returns a computed Zone or an Error sub-object explaining why zone lookup failed. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or prerequisites.
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 sentences long, with the main action in the first sentence and output behavior in the second. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail, earning a perfect score.
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 low complexity (one array parameter), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. The error behavior disclosure covers the only non-obvious aspect, making it complete.
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 input schema fully describes all three parameters (Carrier, OriginZip, DestinationZip) with 100% coverage, so the description provides no additional parameter-specific insight. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 explicitly states 'Calculate carrier shipping zones between origin and destination ZIP codes,' which identifies a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_rates or validate_address by focusing on zone calculation.
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 gives clear context that the tool is for calculating shipping zones between ZIP codes, but it does not mention alternative tools or exclusions. This matches the rubric's 'clear context, no exclusions' level, justifying a 4.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (orders, labels, rates, zones, profiles). A few name pairs like manage_tag vs manage_order_tags and set_order_ship_options vs update_order could be confused, but the descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each.
All tools share the teapplix_ prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_orders, create_order, purchase_label, validate_address). The only deviation is the bare 'help' tool, which is conventional and does not disrupt the pattern.
At 28 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range, but the breadth of shipping operations (orders, labels, rates, manifests, tracking, configuration) justifies the count. It is not bloated.
The tool surface covers the full order-to-shipping lifecycle: order create/update/retrieve, splitting/merging, label purchase and cancellation, rate quotes, tracking, manifesting, address validation, 3PL submission, and configuration (profiles, warehouses, queues, tags). No significant gaps are apparent.