Shipi MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'carrier type and shipper address info,' which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe (e.g., non-destructive), mention authentication needs (like the 'integration_key' parameter), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no structured safety hints.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause and adds return details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and return values, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or error handling. With no output schema, it should ideally explain return structure more, but the mention of 'carrier type and shipper address info' provides some guidance, keeping it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('integration_key' and 'id') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'id' parameter is used to fetch details, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or usage context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get details of a specific carrier account by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get details'), resource ('carrier account'), and key identifier ('by ID'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_carriers' or 'get_account_info,' which prevents a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_carriers' (for listing all carriers) or 'get_account_info' (which might overlap in functionality), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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