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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by naming the specific data returned (status, tracking, address, cost) and disclosing bulk support, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotations, and the additional details are helpful without being excessive.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the tool's action, endpoint, and key return fields. The second sentence adds bulk support concisely. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 GET operation, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to get the id, what it returns, and bulk execution. The lack of output schema means the description must convey return info, which it does. The only gap is the unexplained 'account' parameter, but for a straightforward tool, this is minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'id' parameter implicitly ('Detalha um envio por id') and mentions 'ids' for bulk support. However, the 'account' parameter is not explained at all, leaving its purpose unclear. The description provides some meaning beyond the schema but falls short of fully covering all three parameters.

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 clearly states it details a shipment by id (GET /shipments/{id}) and lists the returned fields (status, tracking, address, cost). It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing specifically on shipment details, and even references how to obtain the shipment id from an order, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to use the shipping.id from mercadolivre_get_order, providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It also adds guidance on bulk execution with ids, distinguishing between single and batched usage. This is strong, actionable usage context.

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