get_fulfilment_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's extra content is mostly about the return payload (verdicts, summary, gaps), which is output-schema territory rather than behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about aggregation cost, freshness, or how identifiers resolve.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, with the usage cue last. The verdict enumeration is long but genuinely informative, so there is little waste.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description need not explain return format, and it sensibly focuses on scope and use cases. It falls just short of full completeness by not noting that all three identifier parameters are optional and at least one must be supplied.

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 all three identifiers (salesorder_id, reference_number, salesorder_number) are already documented, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description adds no guidance on which identifier to supply or whether one is required.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Proof-of-fulfilment pack for one order') and enumerates exactly what the pack contains (shipments, carrier, AWB, dates, items, verdict, summary, gaps). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sales_order or list_sales_orders, which return order data rather than an evidence pack.

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?

'Use for chargebacks/disputes and “where is my order” questions' gives explicit and concrete when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the intended scenarios are unambiguous.

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