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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a confirmation is returned and the first status update arrives within 15 minutes. It stops short of noting auth requirements or duplicate-handling semantics.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each remaining sentence earns its place by conveying return confirmation and the 15-minute latency expectation.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be explained, and the description covers the action plus asynchronous latency. For a 3-param write tool it is nearly complete; only permissions and duplicate-handling context are absent, and idempotency is already hinted in annotations.

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 100% (identifier, identifier_type enum, tags all documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only mentions container/B/L identifiers generically and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Start tracking a new container or Bill of Lading'), and the only sibling action is this one add/write tool while every sibling is a read-only getter, so the agent can place it without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Start tracking a new container' — it signals this is the entry point for new tracking, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use (e.g. already-tracked containers), and no named alternative.

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