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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing what the payload contains (shipment items with product/facility/quantity, packages, transfers), which is meaningful behavioral detail. No pagination or auth notes, but those are less relevant for a single-resource GET.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return scope, with the endpoint appended as a terse orientation. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it well by naming the included sub-resources. The main gap is the absence of any note on error behavior for an invalid ID, which is minor for a simple read.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema documents shipment_id, its length bounds, and even where to find the value. The description adds only the REST path, 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 and resource ('One shipment in full') and enumerates the sub-resources returned (items, packages, transfers), which distinguishes it from the plural list tool finale_list_shipments. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular scope — fetch a single shipment by ID — and the schema points back to finale_list_shipments for discovering IDs. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative.

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