tracking_requests_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that missingTrackingOnly surfaces requests without tracking_number due to a fire-and-forget webhook, and that soft-deleted rows are excluded by default. It does not discuss mutation safety, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, leaving gaps.

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 plus a short note, all front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. Very concise yet informative.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key filtering intentions but omits details on sorting, pagination (limit), and other filters. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a parameter-heavy 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 description coverage is low (29%), so the description should compensate. It explains the purpose of missingTrackingOnly and imply includeDeleted behavior. However, other parameters (env, limit, status, batchId, shipmentType) are not addressed, leaving them underspecified. The description adds value for two params but not enough to fully compensate.

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 lists tracking requests with triage filters, specifying the resource and action. It provides specific details about missingTrackingOnly and includeDeleted, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like tracking_request_overview, so loses some points.

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 gives context on when to use missingTrackingOnly (for stuck requests) and mentions soft-deleted exclusion. However, no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., tracking_request_overview, db_query) or alternatives. It provides some usage hints but lacks comparative guidance.

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