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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds context about the data returned and the two modes (single vs list), but does not disclose pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits. This is a moderate addition beyond structured fields.

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 two sentences plus an example, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the resource and fields, the second explains the two usage modes, and the example clarifies the call syntax. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the two operational modes and the returned fields. It does not describe the response format, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema. The example and parameter explanations make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the behavior of `id` and `page` and provides a concrete example with `_apiKey`, which is helpful. However, it does not introduce new semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'an ocean shipment and its containers', listing specific fields (bill of lading, carrier, POL, POD, vessel, ETA). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like terminal49_container or terminal49_track, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can infer the purpose without confusion.

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 provides guidance on when to pass an `id` versus omitting it to list recent shipments, which is useful for parameter usage. However, it does not discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives such as terminal49_container or terminal49_track, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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