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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by listing the exact returned fields, the embeddable relationships, and the underlying endpoint. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences packed with concrete detail (field list, filter mechanism, relationships, endpoint) and no filler. Dense but readable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the enumerated field list and relationship names in the description usefully fill that gap, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. For a read-only list tool this is nearly complete, though it could note default pagination behavior.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including status, created_after/created_before, filters, with, page, and limit. The description merely echoes filter capability, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List shipments') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the singular sibling cratejoy_get_shipment, but list-vs-get is self-evident.

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?

Says 'Filter by status and creation range, or with `filters`', which implies how to narrow results, but gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to siblings like cratejoy_get_shipment or cratejoy_list_orders. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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