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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: the output is a CSV with every column delivered as a download link. It says nothing, however, about whether filters narrow the export, link expiry, or large-export handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the output format plus delivery mechanism come first. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves no room for the usage or filter caveats an 8-parameter tool warrants.

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?

It correctly answers the return-value question (download link) in the absence of an output schema, which is the biggest gap it could have left. But for a tool with 8 optional filters it never states whether those filters scope the export or are ignored, leaving a real ambiguity for an agent building the call.

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 88%, so the schema already documents sort, batch, search, status, carrier, dates and tracking_status. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that; the phrase 'every column' only implicitly signals that there is no column-selection parameter.

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 names the resource (shipments report) and the output form (CSV, every column, download link), which is specific enough to distinguish it from list_shipments or get_shipment. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling export_report, so sibling differentiation is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to pick this over export_report or list_shipments, and nothing explains whether the 8 filter parameters are honored in the export. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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