Create SCAN Form

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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond that: it consumes only labels that have no form yet (so repeat calls have less to work with), it returns a PDF link, and it errors when nothing is eligible. It stops short of saying whether an existing form can be regenerated or what the error payload looks like.

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?

Front-loaded: the first line gives the resource and the return value, then a sentence explains what gets put on the form and why the carrier benefits. The rationale sentence ('The carrier scans that one sheet instead of every package') is useful but slightly padded, so not a full 5.

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 three-optional-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (PDF link), the selection semantics, and the error condition. Defaults and per-parameter meaning live in the schema, so nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters (including defaults for ship_date and from_address_id) are already documented inline. The description only reinforces the either/or grouping of 'one Ship Date and Ship From Address (or of one batch)' without adding format or precedence detail beyond the schema's 'ignores ship_date' note, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (USPS End of Day SCAN Form) and defines its scope: the labels of one Ship Date / Ship From Address, or of one batch. The output form (a PDF link) is named, so an agent can tell this apart from list_scan_forms or download_labels 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?

Explains the when: labels of one Ship Date plus Ship From Address, or one batch, that currently have no SCAN Form. It also names the prerequisite failure mode ('No labels without a form: Pirate Ship answers with an error'). It does not point at a sibling to use instead when no eligible labels exist, which keeps it short of a 5.

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