track_parcel

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral information by stating that tracking returns status and route history and that it requires a barcode. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, rate limits, or required authentication, leaving some transparency 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the action, scope, and output.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core purpose and expected return. It could be more complete by mentioning limitations (e.g., only works for Kazpost barcodes) but is otherwise well-rounded.

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?

The schema provides only a string parameter 'track' with no description. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a barcode, which adds meaningful semantics. While it doesn't specify format or length, for a single-parameter lookup tool this is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Track'), the resource ('Kazakhstan Post (Kazpost) parcel'), and the expected output ('status + route history'). This specific verb+resource combination unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated (listings, validation, rates, weather).

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 implies the tool is for tracking Kazpost parcels, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No competing tracking tool appears among siblings, so the context is clear but not fully articulated.

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