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

The description says 'Start tracking' and describes creating a tracking request with status transitions, which implies a state-changing write operation. This directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true. The description also does not clarify idempotency or whether repeated calls create duplicate tracking requests, despite idempotentHint=true. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 action and return value front-loaded. The example is compact and directly illustrates the primary parameters. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

The description explains the return value and status flow, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it does not mention how to use the returned tracking request id, how to poll for completion, or how auto_detect_scac interacts with the SCAC parameter. The annotation contradiction also leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a concrete example with realistic values, which aids understanding, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'plus the carrier SCAC' slightly oversimplifies because SCAC is optional when auto_detect_scac is true.

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 action ('Start tracking an ocean shipment or container') and the required inputs (bill of lading, booking, or container number plus SCAC). It also specifies the return value (tracking request id and status), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools terminal49_shipment and terminal49_container. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you want to initiate tracking for a shipment or container. It provides a concrete example, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives like terminal49_shipment or terminal49_container for retrieving existing tracking data. Usage context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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