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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the concrete return payload (usage records, matching orders, label surcharges, return orders) and that matching is exact. It does not mention permission needs or what happens on a non-match, so it is not fully exhaustive, but it adds genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the routing/exclusion guidance following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the return contents and disambiguates from siblings. It stops short of stating failure behavior or auth requirements, which for a 2-parameter read tool is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (trackTrace, intentId) are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the 'exact match' semantics of trackTrace but adds no format examples or edge-case guidance beyond that; baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One-call shipment investigation by exact track & trace') and enumerates what it returns (usage records, matching orders, label surcharges, return orders). This clearly separates it from the many other lookup/label tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: LookupByTrackTraceBatch for CSV/bulk billing reconciliation ('never call this per CSV row') and InvestigateLabelByTrackTrace for material/customs/line-item questions. This is exactly the when-to-use/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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