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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the availability constraint tied to where the label was purchased, plus where the shipment id originates. It does not discuss empty/paginated results or rate limits.

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 compact sentences: return payload first, then availability precondition, then the raw endpoint. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the trailing GET path is marginally redundant with the tool name and schema.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned event fields and the id's origin, so an agent knows what it will get back. The only gap is what happens when no tracking exists (empty list vs. error), which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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 fully documented in the schema, including its provenance (veeqo_get_order → allocations[].shipment.id). The description merely repeats the same sourcing hint for the id, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field.

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 states exactly what is returned — tracking events (timestamp, status, description, location) for a shipment — which is more specific than a generic 'get shipment' phrasing. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling getters (order, product, supplier, warehouse), though it does not explicitly name a sibling it conflicts with.

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?

'Available when the label was bought in Veeqo' gives a genuine precondition that tells the agent when this call is applicable and when it will yield nothing. It also routes the agent to the id source (an order's allocations[].shipment). No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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