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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, the 500-row cap, and the inclusion of computed short-line counts.

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 deliver the main behavior, key output fields, ordering, filters, and a row limit with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers return contents, ordering, filters, and the row limit. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the result shape.

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 fully documents all five parameters. The description only restates a few filter concepts and does not add new meaning to parameters like divisor or open_only, but it does not need to given the schema quality.

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 operation: listing packing lists, with explicit output fields (cartons, units, gross weight, short ordered lines), ordering (newest first), and filters. This distinguishes it from siblings like packing_list_show or packing_list_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?

The description gives clear usage context: filter by status, order reference, or consignee, and returns up to 500 rows. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most list-vs-detail decisions.

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