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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the rich payload (label metadata, DB vs Shopify line items, Nova Post invoice sent-vs-current comparison), which is genuine behavioral context. However it never states the operation is read-only, nor any permission, auth, or side-effect profile, leaving a real gap for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a single dense sentence listing returned fields. Every sentence earns its place, though the field enumeration is packed and could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by spelling out the returned data groups, which is exactly what an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is the missing behavioral/safety profile that no annotation supplies.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description mentions the track & trace key only implicitly and adds no format or syntax detail (and nothing on intentId), so it does not go beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('label/material investigation by track & trace') and then enumerates exactly what it surfaces, which clearly separates it from LookupByTrackTrace (plain lookup), InvoiceInvestigation and OrderInvestigation. An agent can tell what it does and how it differs from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

'Prefer this for customs/material disputes' gives an explicit scenario that selects this tool over the plain track & trace lookups. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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