get_shipping_preview

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description explicitly states that the tool is a 'hosted endpoint only' and an 'introspection stub', indicating it is not fully functional in the local environment. This critical behavioral trait is disclosed, though other aspects like permissions or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the function and the second reveals the stub limitation, making key information easily accessible.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate with details on return values and parameter effects. It does not explain the output format or how parameters like filters or date ranges influence results, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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: 'MCF shipping options and cost estimates' and specifies it is a read operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_mcf_order' or 'get_mcf_orders' by focusing on previewing options rather than creating or retrieving orders.

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 other tools, such as 'get_mcf_orders' for actual orders or other fulfillment tools. It also does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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