get_package

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by listing the specific data fields returned (e.g., photos, tracking events, shipping label data), providing context beyond the safety profile. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently lists all included details without waste. It is front-loaded with the core action 'Get full package details' and then enumerates specifics.

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 simplicity (one parameter), comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. No additional context is needed.

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 100% and the description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'full package details' while enumerating specific data categories (photos, tracking events, shipping label data, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_packages (which returns a list) and get_package_photos (which focuses on photos alone).

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 implicitly indicates use when full details of a specific package are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_packages or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose is clear but lacks direct exclusions.

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