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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive, closed read. The description adds modest context by identifying it as a passthrough of GET /api/Shippingmethods, but says nothing about the organisationId scoping default, empty-result behavior, or how the optional filters combine.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource definition is front-loaded and the clarifying note about ProductCode follows. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

For a read-only, all-optional-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (shipping methods / product codes) and how that value is consumed. Minor gap: it does not describe the returned fields such as carrier or product name formatting.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema (units, ISO-2 examples, 'not a numeric id', the ListContracts cross-reference). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting ProductCode maps into CreateLabelForOrder, so the 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 the specific resource ('Shipping methods available for a route') and ties it to the underlying REST endpoint, plus clarifies its downstream use for ProductCode. It never names a sibling tool, so differentiation from ListContracts or SearchParcelShops is left implicit, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the ProductCode sentence hints the tool is a prerequisite step before creating a label, and the route phrasing implies filtering by origin/destination. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or reference to the competing contract and parcel-shop tools.

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