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

readOnlyHint=true is already supplied by annotations, and the description is consistent with it by disclosing the underlying read endpoint (GET /{account}/api/shipment/). Beyond that it adds no behavioral context such as pagination, default row counts, or the 30-day update-window constraint that the schema itself carries.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then the scope, then the fields, then the endpoint. No filler, no repetition of the title, every clause carries information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (shipmentId, type, status, order, origin/destination, dates, tracking code), which is exactly the gap it needs to fill for a read-only list tool. Remaining omissions, such as pagination or the update-window limit, are minor.

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 all five parameters (limit, fields, status, updated_since, updated_until) are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description does add marginally by naming concrete status values (SHIPMENT_INPUT, SHIPMENT_PACKED, SHIPMENT_SHIPPED) beyond the schema's single example.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List shipments') and immediately qualifies the scope by enumerating shipment kinds (sales shipments, purchase receipts, transfers) and the key returned fields, so an agent can tell what it retrieves. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling finale_get_shipment, which returns a single 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?

Usage is only implied: the enumerations of shipment types and fields suggest when a bulk listing is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no mention of using finale_get_shipment for a single record, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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