create_parcel

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response is 'normalized' and that booking spans multiple couriers, but it does not describe side effects such as external shipment creation, possible charges, idempotency, failure modes, or authentication needs. This is thin for a mutating tool.

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 that states the action, scope, and couriers with no filler. Every phrase contributes context, and the 'normalized response' clause is a useful compact hint about the 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?

Given eight parameters, five required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description leaves several operational gaps: it does not say which fields are required, how 'auto' courier routing works, what the normalized response contains, or what happens if booking fails. The schema covers parameter format, but the description is incomplete for real invocation.

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 every parameter, including defaults, enum choices, and the Bangladeshi phone format. The description adds regional context and repeats courier names from the enum, so it adds only marginal value beyond the parameter schema.

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 opens with the action verb 'Book' and identifies the exact resource: 'a new parcel delivery across Bangladesh.' It also names the supported couriers, which clearly distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like list_couriers, track_parcel, and get_balance.

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 phrase 'Book a new parcel' implies this tool is for creating deliveries, and the sibling names make tracking/listing alternatives apparent. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives or state exclusions, such as using track_parcel for existing shipments.

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