label_preflight

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

The description explicitly declares zero side effects, which is critical for a validation tool. It enumerates all behavioral aspects: party resolution, contact system flags, commodity checks, unit-value suggestions, declared-value limit, and env wiring. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Validate... with ZERO side effects') and then lists checks. While it conveys all information, the structure is somewhat run-on and could benefit from bullet points for readability. Still, it is appropriately sized and contains no fluff.

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 thoroughly covers what the tool does but omits any mention of output or return value. Since there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., validation errors, summary). This gap reduces completeness given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, detailed checks).

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 high (82%), but the description adds meaningful context beyond schema definitions. It explains preflight's role in suggesting values (e.g., unitValue, commodity fields) and clarifies behavior for custom lines (no unit-value suggestion). This enhances understanding of parameter semantics during validation.

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 validates a FedEx shipment with zero side effects, listing specific checks (party resolution, commodity validation, unit-value suggestions, declared-value limit). It positions itself as a pre-validation step ('Run this first'), distinguishing it from any creation tool. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool first ('Run this first'), implying it should precede label creation. It also notes that custom lines have different handling (no unit-value suggestion). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings like label_options, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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