track_shipment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses what data will be returned, implies a read-only tracking operation, and usefully notes the 120-day UPS data retention limit. It does not mention error behavior or authorization, but these are minor for a simple read-style 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 compact: one sentence defines the action, resource, and expected returned data, and one short note adds a relevant behavioral limitation. Every part earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only tracking tool, the description is complete: it explains the input format, the outputs, and the retention limitation. The output schema covers the exact response shape, so no additional return-value detail is necessary.

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 must compensate for the sole parameter. It explicitly names the tracking number as the lookup key and gives a concrete format example ('1Z...'), which helps an agent construct a valid call. This exceeds what the input schema provides.

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 identifies the verb 'Track', the resource 'a UPS shipment', and the specific outputs: current status, scheduled/actual delivery date, and recent scan events. The tracking-number example and UPS scope distinguish it from sibling tools like get_rates and landed_cost.

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 gives clear context for use: when a UPS tracking number is available and shipment status information is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to choose it over the rate/cost-focused siblings.

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