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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (Bearer token, 403 otherwise) and mentions the output includes status, courier, and tracking. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or if there are any side effects. More behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise: one main sentence plus a brief owner-only clarification. Every sentence provides essential information without extraneous detail. The most critical information (what, for whom, auth requirement) is front-loaded.

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 (2 boolean params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, parameters with usage advice, and auth requirement. It mentions the fields returned (ship_status, courier, tracking) but does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., array of objects). For a list tool, a note on pagination or sorting would be helpful but is not critical given the simple nature.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool's description adds significant value by explaining the default behavior for 'all' (active only) and importantly for 'reveal' it cautions about PII sensitivity ('customer PII stays out of the chat log'), guiding appropriate usage. This exceeds the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the action 'List' and the specific resource 'physical (address-bearing) orders for the factory shipping console'. It also specifies the returned fields (ship_status, courier, tracking) and the access restriction (owner-only), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. The title reinforces this by mentioning 'owner only'.

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 indicates the tool is for the 'factory shipping console' and is owner-only, implying it's for administrative use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., mu_ship_csv, mu_ship_mark) or provide conditions for alternative selection. More explicit guidance would improve usability.

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