track_parcel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the supported couriers and input type, and 'Track' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe what the response contains, failure behavior, or whether courier detection is automatic.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the action, resource, supported couriers, and required input. There is no superfluous text, and the description earns its place without bloating the tool definition.

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 tracking tool with two parameters, the description is adequate, but it lacks details an agent might need, such as expected output shape, behavior for invalid tracking codes, or whether the courier field is needed for all providers. Since there is no output schema, a little more context about what is returned would make this fully complete.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value by restating that the tracking code is the Consignment ID and listing the courier enum values, but it does not provide any meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific action ('Track shipment delivery status') with a clear resource (parcel shipments), and names the supported couriers. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_parcel, get_balance, and check_fraud_risk, even without opening the schema.

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 purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer this tool is for delivery-status lookups, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative should be chosen instead. No sibling alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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