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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source system, the required inputs, and what comes back (latest status plus event history), which is solid. It stops short of disclosing auth/permission needs, rate limits, or handling of unknown tracking numbers, so it is not fully complete.

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-loads the core purpose and then routes to the alternative; every sentence is useful. It is slightly long in packing extraction instructions and the sibling dependency note into the description, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, yet the description states what the tool returns and when to call it versus its sibling, which covers the essentials for a simple 2-param read tool. Minor gaps around authentication or failure behavior remain.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters, including the 'sparkle' example and the tracking-number format, so this is baseline 3. The description's instruction to extract the system name and tracking number from the user's message adds only marginal value over the schema's own examples.

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 (get) and resource (tracking information/status/event history of a parcel/consignment from a courier system), and clearly distinguishes itself from get_delivery_proof and list_tracking_systems. An agent can tell exactly what this retrieves 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?

Explicitly states when to use it (user asks about a parcel/shipment/consignment/tracking number with a system name) and names the alternative for a related need ('delivery location or signature/proof of delivery, use get_delivery_proof instead'). It even notes the dependency (postcode) required by the sibling.

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