lookup_packing_list

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior. The description adds the scope of lookup keys but does not disclose behavior around include_pdf (e.g., whether it returns a PDF or alters data), response format, or edge cases. It provides some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and acceptable inputs. No filler or redundant content, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 and a nested request object, the description is minimally adequate: it states what the tool returns conceptually ('packing-list information') and the input types. But it fails to mention the include_pdf flag or describe what 'information' entails, so an agent lacks full context for more complex invocations.

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 0%, so the description carries some burden. It names all three lookup_type enum values in prose, which helps map free text to the enum. However, it omits the behavior and purpose of include_pdf and does not clarify the 'value' parameter beyond 'number', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('packing-list information') and explicitly enumerates the lookup keys (invoice, sales order, purchase order). This differentiates it from sibling lookup tools, none of which target packing lists.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a packing list needs to be found by one of the three document numbers. It does not provide explicit exclusion guidance or alternative tool names, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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