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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the implicit 24-hour recency window, the fact that label files are deliberately not returned, and the underlying GET /api/orders/shipped endpoint.

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?

Three tight sentences plus an endpoint reference, with the highest-value information (what is returned, default time window) front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 pre-announces the returned fields and the notable omission (label files), and annotations cover read-only safety. Pagination and next_page handling are only implied via the schema, so coverage is strong but not exhaustive.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends since_last_updated by disclosing that omitting it yields only the last 24 hours of updates — a default not stated in the schema. Pagination and ids_only are left entirely to the schema, keeping this below a 5.

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 ('List shipped orders') and enumerates the returned fields (tracking number, tracking status, carrier, manifest, shipped date), plus the parenthetical '(label printed)' that clarifies what 'shipped' means here. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as list_printed_orders or list_unshipped_orders, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the default window is only orders updated in the last 24 hours, and since_last_updated is the escape hatch to look further back. That is actionable usage guidance, though it never says when to pick this tool over list_orders, list_printed_orders, or search_orders.

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