register_expected

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

Annotations indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description adds behavioral context: auto-matching on arrival and auto-execution of actions, which are side effects not captured by annotations alone. No contradictions.

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, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and the optional auto-action is clearly separated with examples. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 output schema exists (not shown but signaled), return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the tool's core function and an important optional feature. Parameter details are adequately handled by the schema.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds value by explaining the optional auto_action and giving examples, but the schema already describes all parameters adequately.

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 'Pre-register' and resource 'expected inbound shipment', with a specific purpose 'auto-matched when it arrives'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_rule' or 'request_scan' by focusing on incoming package expectations.

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?

It implies usage when expecting an inbound shipment that should be auto-matched, and mentions optional auto-action. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context from sibling names makes the use case clear.

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