List carrier services

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no contradiction. It adds context about filtering by type, which aligns with annotations. No disclosure of pagination or rate limits, but tool is simple and read-only.

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: first states purpose, second gives parameter guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description states it returns 'services and their service codes', which implies the output structure but lacks explicit format or examples. With no output schema, a bit more detail would help, but sufficient for a simple list tool.

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%, but the description adds practical meaning beyond the schema's 'Which service catalogue to return.' by explaining how to choose between 'shipment' and 'pickup' for different use cases.

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 it lists available carrier services and their service codes, using the verb 'list' and specific resource. It distinguishes between 'shipment' and 'pickup' types, differentiating from sibling tools like 'deftship_get_carrier_status'.

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 explicit guidance on using the 'type' parameter ('Use type 'shipment' for parcel/freight services or 'pickup' for pickup services'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like other get tools.

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