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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already establish safety, and the description adds meaningful context: 'Nothing here is stored; it is computed.' This clarifies that the output is a derived view with no persistence side effects, and it also discloses that weights are derived and ship-readiness includes a reason.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('the whole packing list') and then efficiently enumerates the full set of returned information, ending with a valuable behavioral note about computed data.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It names all major output dimensions (cartons, contents, weights, lines, shortfall, ship-readiness, status history) and clarifies the computed, non-persisted nature of the result.

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 both parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond mentioning 'derived weights,' which relates to the divisor but is not explicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses the specific verb 'show' with the resource 'one packing list' and immediately scopes it as 'the whole packing list.' The enumerated contents (cartons, ordered lines, shortfall, ship-readiness, status history) clearly distinguish this full-detail view from siblings like packing_list_status, packing_shortfall, and packing_list_list.

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 usage context is implied: if you need the complete packing list view, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over packing_list_status, packing_list_list, packing_shortfall, or packing_slip, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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