easypost_get_shipmentRetrieve a single shipment by id, including its available rates, tracking_code, and postage_label (if purchased). API: GET /shipments/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Shipment id, e.g. shp_... |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying returned fields (rates, tracking_code, postage_label) and the API endpoint. It offers additional context beyond the annotation without contradiction.
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 two sentences: one functional sentence listing what is returned, and one API reference. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.
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 simple one-parameter get operation without output schema, the description covers return fields adequately. Missing details like error handling or pagination are not critical here.
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 describes the 'id' parameter. The description adds no new meaning beyond stating 'by id', which matches the schema. 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?
The description clearly states it retrieves a single shipment by id and lists specific included fields (rates, tracking_code, postage_label). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, buy, list, etc.
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 implies using this tool when you need details of a specific shipment, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives like easypost_list_shipments for multiple shipments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: address operations, shipment lifecycle (create, buy, refund, get, list), and tracking. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent `easypost_<verb>_<resource>` pattern using snake_case, with clear verbs like create, get, list, buy, refund, verify.
11 tools cover the essential operations for address management, shipment lifecycle, and tracking without being too many or too few.
Core workflows (rate, buy, refund, track, address verification) are complete. Minor gaps like missing delete for addresses or update for shipments are acceptable for the domain.