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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description contributes the API endpoint and the shape of what comes back (courier, tracking, status). It omits behavior for orders without parcels, batching limits for large serial-number lists, and whether any auth/scope is required.

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 compact sentences: the payload is front-loaded and the API path follows as a secondary detail. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and readOnly annotations, the description is sufficient: it names the resource, the returned fields, and the endpoint. Only edge-case behavior (orders with no parcels, invalid serial numbers) is missing.

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 the single parameter is documented as 'Order serial numbers.', so the schema does the work. The description's plural 'of orders' loosely hints the parameter is a list, but adds no format, limit, or validity guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the parcels (shipments) of orders') with the returned fields enumerated (courier, tracking numbers, status), which tells an agent exactly what it gets. It doesn't name or differentiate itself from siblings like idosell_get_orders, though the resource (parcels vs orders) is distinct enough in practice.

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: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs shipment/tracking data for known order serial numbers. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative (e.g. idosell_get_orders for order-level data, idosell_list_couriers for courier metadata).

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