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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety details. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the source scope (Pirate Ship labels) and returned fields, plus the default newest-first ordering, though it omits pagination behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the resource, key returned fields, and default ordering.

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?

Annotations cover safety and the schema covers most filters, but the description is thin for a 10-parameter list tool with no output schema. It gives the return fields and ordering but does not explain pagination, filter interactions, or when to prefer related tools.

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 70%, so the schema already documents most filters such as search, status, carrier, date range, and tracking_status. The description only reinforces the default sort order and output fields; it does not add meaning for limit, offset, or batch filtering.

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 identifies the resource clearly: labels bought in Pirate Ship, with recipient, tracking, cost, and status. It is specific enough to distinguish a list operation from get_shipment or export_shipments, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus export_shipments, get_shipment, list_batches, or search_recipients. The only usage cue is implied by "Labels bought in Pirate Ship" and "newest first," which does not cover exclusions or alternatives.

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