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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behaviors: idempotent re-runs, per-order ownership filtering, auto-detection of carrier when only a tracking number is supplied, shared tracking values written to every order, and per-order success/failure buckets in the response. This adds substantial context beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint 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?

Three dense sentences front-load the primary action, then add endpoint mapping, behavioral guarantees, and return format. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 this complexity level, the description is complete: it states the batch limit, ownership constraint, optional tracking behaviors, idempotency, and the response summary. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of 'per-order success/failure buckets' gives the agent enough expectation of the return shape without over-specifying.

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?

The schema already covers all parameter descriptions at 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the shared behavior of the optional tracking fields and the auto-detection relationship between carrier_name and tracking_number, which is not fully explicit in the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Mark up to 200 of the calling seller's orders as shipped', which clearly distinguishes this bulk order action from sibling tools like bulk_export_orders and bulk_update_listings. It also specifies key constraints such as ownership, batch size, and optional tracking fields.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: marking the caller's orders as shipped in bulk, with re-runs being idempotent and ownership enforced. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but no sibling tool competes for the same action.

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