sfc_get_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only partially delivers: it discloses the upstream host (tracking.sfcservice.com) and the 40-number batch limit, implying a read-only lookup. It says nothing about return content, partial-failure behavior when one of several numbers is invalid, or error handling.

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 short sentences with zero padding, and the core action plus the batch limit are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but there is no output schema, so the description should at least sketch what a track response contains (status events, carrier, timestamps) or the order of results matching the input numbers. That gap keeps it at minimum viable.

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 50% — `client` is documented in the schema, `numbers` is not — and the description only restates the numbers parameter ("by tracking number(s)", "up to 40"). It adds nothing about what the `client` tag affects, so the undocumented half of the schema remains unexplained.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Track") with a specific resource ("shipments") and the key input (tracking numbers), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like sfc_search_order or sfc_get_label_url, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It never says when to use this versus sfc_search_order or sfc_get_label_url, nor does it state prerequisites such as valid credentials or that numbers must be SFC-issued tracking IDs. The only guidance present is the batch cap, which is a constraint rather than usage direction.

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