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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses that the response includes nested pickup/drop stops and items, hinting at payload size, but says nothing about whether the optional flags expand the payload or about error behavior when an ID is not found.

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 with the response content front-loaded before the endpoint note. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint fragment is low-value filler for an agent that already knows the tool name.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, three parameters, and annotation coverage of the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the nested objects returned. It leaves the two optional flags unexplained and gives no sense of response size or failure modes, which is a real gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate at all. It never mentions include_tracking_link or include_cost_and_charge_lines, leaving the agent to infer from bare boolean names whether these add data, cost extra, or change response shape; shipment_id is the only self-evident parameter.

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 ('Get a shipment') and adds what comes back ('its pickup and drop stops and items'), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling retrieval tools like locate2u_get_order, locate2u_get_stop, or locate2u_get_trip, so an agent must infer the resource boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus locate2u_find_order, locate2u_list_unassigned_shipments, or the other get_* siblings. The only usage clue is the raw endpoint reference 'GET /shipments/{id}', which assumes API familiarity rather than guiding tool selection.

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