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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by disclosing that results are paginated and can be filtered by status, which are behavioral aspects beyond the annotations.

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 long, with the first sentence communicating the core purpose and key fields returned. The second sentence adds pagination and filter details. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned (status summary, latest event, transit days, registration time), pagination behavior, and filter capability. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misunderstand.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear docs for page, page_size, and status (including an enum). The description mentions the filter by status and lists the enum values, but this is redundant with the schema. Thus, the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses specific verbs ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all tracking numbers registered in your account') and the output content ('status summary — package status, latest event, transit days, registration time'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling logistics tools like logistics.dhl.track or logistics.tracking.status by emphasizing account-wide listing with summary.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide any guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is given, and there is no mention of related tools or conditions. For a tool that lists all packages, usage context such as 'use this to get an overview before drilling into individual tracking status' would help but is absent.

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