Identify which carrier a tracking number belongs to, without actually fetching status. Returns primary guess + any other candidates for ambiguous numbers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracking_number | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently states it returns a primary guess and candidates for ambiguous numbers, and that it does not fetch status. Could mention error handling or unknown carriers but sufficient.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action. Very concise and to the point.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers input, output structure, and behavior. Minor gaps like error handling could be addressed but not critical.
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 has 0% coverage (no description for tracking_number parameter). Description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose (tracking number for carrier detection). For a simple string parameter, this is adequate.
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?
Description clearly identifies the verb ('Identify'), resource ('carrier for a tracking number'), and scope ('without actually fetching status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like track_package by stating it does not fetch status.
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?
Description implies when to use this tool (before tracking to identify carrier) and mentions it returns candidates for ambiguous numbers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly to siblings, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: carrier identification, listing supported carriers, batch tracking, and single package tracking. There is no ambiguity in their roles.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (detect_carrier, list_carriers, track_multiple, track_package), making them predictable.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a tracking server, covering the essential operations without superfluous or missing functionality.
The tool set covers carrier detection, listing, single tracking, and batch tracking. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to validate tracking number format against a carrier, but the core workflows are complete.