List carrier adjustments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what each record contains (old vs actual measurement, old vs new cost, USD adjustment, dispute status) and by pointing to the dispute path, though it says nothing about result volume or ordering behavior.

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 lead sentence is a fragment ('with old and actual package') and the second is a dense run-on that restates the old/actual idea twice (values and costs). The content is mostly substantive, but the phrasing costs readability without adding precision.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what a returned adjustment looks like, which is the most important gap it could fill for a read-only list tool. What remains missing is pagination/return-shape behavior and filter semantics, both of which an agent must open the schema to learn.

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?

Eight parameters and only 63% schema description coverage, yet the description explains none of them — no mention of sort, limit, offset, status, carrier arrays, or the from_date/to_date semantics. The field list (weight, size, package type, zone, ZIP, costs, dispute flag) describes record contents, not filter inputs, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 defines the resource concretely: extra charges or credits a carrier applied after a label was used, arising from measurement discrepancies. That is far more than a restatement of the name and lets an agent distinguish it from list_refunds or list_transactions, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

It implies the use case (carrier re-measured weight/size/package type/zone/ZIP versus the label) but never states when to call this versus other listing tools or report exports. The one routing cue is a follow-up action: 'dispute_adjustment disputes one by shipment_id,' which tells the agent where to go after listing, not whether to list now.

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