locker_shipment_offer

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It communicates the core behavior: given a post_id, it returns an offer object with eligibility and price fields, implying a read-only lookup. However, it does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving those traits undisclosed.

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 two short sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the return payload and purpose, the second states the required input. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter lookup, the description plus schema is enough to invoke it: pass post_id and expect an offer object. Gaps remain in usage guidance and behavioral details (auth/errors), so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented post_id parameter. It only repeats that post_id is required—already in the schema—and adds no format, source, or meaning beyond 'a post's.' This is minimal compensation.

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 identifies a concrete resource (a post's Locker shipping option) and specifies the returned fields (offerId, isEligible, price), which distinguishes it from siblings such as get_post_details. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the output-shape notation makes the retrieval purpose clear.

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 'for a post's Locker shipping option' implies the tool should be used when an agent needs Locker shipping offer data for a given post. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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