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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the returned field set, the endpoint (GET /ordersshipments), and the important limitation that label files are not returned inline. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or result ordering, which the agent must infer from parameters.

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?

Four short fragments, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by filtering modes, a caveat, and the endpoint. No sentence is filler or repetitive.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers purpose, filtering, returned fields, and a key limitation. The only mild gap is pagination guidance, which the schema's offset description already handles via next_offset.

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 every parameter (sort, limit, offset, date_from, date_to, order_id) is already self-documenting. The description only restates that filtering is by order or date, adding no format details (e.g., accepted date string format) 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?

The description names a specific resource (waybills / shipping labels) and enumerates the fields it returns (order id, tracking number, creation and delivery date), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest siblings (list_orders, list_shipment_methods), but the resource is concrete enough that an agent can tell what it retrieves.

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?

"Filter by order or date" implies the two usage modes, and "Label files are not returned inline" steers the agent away from expecting downloads. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, no mention of when to prefer a search/order-level tool, and no note on paging through results despite a paginated schema.

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