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

Goes well beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing required scope (orders:write), the side effect of stopping the ship SLA, that the delivered_at call starts the refund window, and that repeating is a no-op. This is the kind of context an agent needs to sequence calls safely.

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?

Front-loaded with the state transition, then parameters, then the follow-up sequence, all in a tight semicolon-delimited block. No sentence is filler; each clause adds a distinct operational fact.

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 state-mutating tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: auth scope, ordering of the two call modes, idempotency, and downstream effects (SLA stop, refund window). Nothing material is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the load: it enumerates the tracking subfields (carrier, number, url optional), flags delivery_eta as ISO 8601, and explains delivered_at's role in the second call. order_id is only implicitly required and untranslated, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with an explicit state transition ('CONFIRMED -> SHIPPED for a physical order'), and the sibling namespace (order_confirm, order_document, orders_list) makes it obvious this is the fulfillment step, not confirmation or document retrieval. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance and the follow-up path: call with tracking to ship, call again later with delivered_at to mark DELIVERED. It even names shop.order.get to explain where the buyer-visible tracking surfaces, leaving nothing to inference.

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