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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, open-world read. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a 3-month recency ceiling, newest-first ordering, and a fixed 50-per-page size — all of which shape how the agent must page. It does not mention rate limits or total-result behavior, so not a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence covering scope, ordering, page size, return fields, and filter precedence, followed by the raw endpoint. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (age limit, sort order) are 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so explicitly. Combined with the recency cap, ordering, page size, and filter precedence, an agent has everything needed to call and page this tool correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by defining what a 'page' contains (50 records) and reinforcing the order_id-over-fulfilment_method precedence, making paging behavior concrete rather than abstract.

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 ('List shipments') and immediately scopes it: up to 3 months old, newest first, 50 per page. It even enumerates the returned fields (id, date, order items, transport/track and trace), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-record sibling bol_get_shipment.

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?

Gives a concrete invocation rule — filter by order_id OR fulfilment_method, with order_id taking precedence — which prevents an agent from sending both and guessing at behavior. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative (e.g. bol_get_shipment for one shipment) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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