Экспресс: ссылки для отслеживания

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the exact response structure, the constraint that sharing_link exists only for destination points, and the specific 409 error codes (inappropriate_status, unknown_tracking_links). This enriches the agent's understanding of expected behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only essential details: output structure, sharing_link constraint, and error codes. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value, constraints on the data, and potential errors. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect and how to interpret results.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the sole parameter (claim_id) with a clear description of its origin and format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns public tracking links for a courier that can be shared with the recipient. It provides the output structure (route_points with id, type, visit_order, sharing_link) and specifies that sharing_link is only available for destination points, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like express_get_claim or express_performer_position.

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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool: to obtain public tracking links intended for the recipient. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and supported by the distinction of sharing_link for destination points only.

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