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

Although annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds meaningful operational context beyond them: INET login yields the most detail, Operations App login calls without credentials and returns only the limited public view, and each call costs 1 API credit.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays compact, with no obvious filler. The first sentence is dense with several semicolon-separated clauses, which slightly reduces readability, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 the fully described six-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuances: what is matched, what is returned at a high level, and how authentication affects visibility. It could say a bit more about response pagination or error handling, but the schema carries much of that detail.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds specific meaning to the tracking_numbers parameter by naming Reference1/Reference2 of orders or route stops, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'references or barcodes' wording, though it says little about the date or pagination parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Track orders and route stops by tracking number') and explains the matching semantics (parcel reference, item barcode, Reference1/Reference2). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling cxt_search_shipments, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies: tracking numbers, references, or barcodes, with permission-dependent detail levels. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus cxt_search_shipments or name any exclusions, so it is not a 5.

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