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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint already declaring a safe read, the description still adds substantial context: snapshot_date is the last-refresh date, created_at is a best-effort inference from shipment_name with created_at_source flagging it, ambiguous or future dates return null rather than a wrong value, and no per-shipment received/closed timestamp exists. The account/region-level scoping caveat (no native marketplace) is also disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose before the caveats, and every sentence carries actionable information with no filler. It is dense and somewhat long, but that length is justified by the data-model quirks it must convey.

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 9-parameter read tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the remaining burdens: what fields are returned, how inferred dates behave, sibling routing for related timestamps, and marketplace scoping. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches semantics — it clarifies that snapshot_date is the reliable refresh date while created_at is inferred, and that created_at_source identifies the inference, which the schema alone does not convey. It does not add meaning for limit/offset/sort_order beyond the already-complete 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (FBA inbound shipment data) and enumerates the returned fields — shipment IDs, statuses, destination fulfillment centers, refresh dates. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings by naming get_inventory_movements and get_shipment_receiving_status, so an agent can place it precisely in the toolset.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere when the needed data is not here: use get_inventory_movements with event_type=Receipts for receipt timing, or get_shipment_receiving_status for shipped-vs-received quantities per SKU. Both the condition and the alternative are stated, which is the strongest form of usage guidance.

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