Get courier position

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses the exact response structure and error conditions (404, 409). This adds behavioral context about expected failures and what data will be returned, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a compact error list. It front-loads the main purpose and output, with no wasted words or redundant repetition of schema data.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and annotation coverage, the description provides enough context: response fields, route_points, sharing_link, and specific error semantics. It could mention pagination or rate limits, but these are likely not relevant for a single-position endpoint. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with a detailed description of claim_id (32–64 chars, from create_claim or search_claims). The tool description adds the critical semantic constraint that the claim must be active, which is not in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 returns the current courier geoposition for an active claim, listing the specific fields (lat, lon, timestamp, accuracy, speed, direction) and route_points with sharing_link. This directly aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings that provide different tracking or courier info.

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 implies usage for active claims by noting error 409 when the claim is not active or no courier is assigned. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like get_courier_phone or get_tracking_links, nor state when-not-to-use. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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