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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the organisational scoping ('this organisation's'), and says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering — modest added value above the annotations.

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 sentence with the filter scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema needed, the description plus annotations cover the essentials. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'limit' semantics (page size? max results?) for an unannotated parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does supply the accepted status values (planned | in_transit | delivered | exception | cancelled), which the schema lacks entirely, but the 'limit' parameter is left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List this organisation's shipments', with the scope of the collection made explicit. It does not, however, distinguish itself against adjacent siblings such as shipment_status or shipment_profiles, leaving the agent to infer which of the related tools fits.

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?

'Optionally by status' implies filtering behavior, so usage is inferable for the primary case. There is no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from shipment_status or shipment_profiles.

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