List pickups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real signal beyond that by enumerating what comes back, noting USPS pickups are free, and flagging per-row cancellability. It stops short of saying how far back 'past' pickups extend, whether there is pagination or ordering, or auth/account scoping.

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 lead sentence names the resource and scope immediately, and the second sentence is a dense but justified field inventory given the absence of an output schema. It reads as a long run-on list and could be punctuated as bullets, but no sentence is filler.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does it well: carrier, time window, status, confirmation number, package count/weight, location, price and cancellability. Missing only history window, result ordering and any pagination/limit behavior.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline applies. The field list it does provide documents the response, not inputs, and is not wasted, but it cannot raise the parameter dimension further.

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 resource (scheduled and past USPS and UPS pickups on the account) with concrete attributes (confirmation numbers, day/time window, status). The reference to cancel_pickup signals it is the read/list counterpart to a mutation, so an agent can distinguish it from the other pickup-related sibling, get_pickup_quote.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Every carrier pickup on the account' plus 'whether it can still be cancelled with cancel_pickup' tells the agent this is the discovery step before cancelling. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and the sibling get_pickup_quote (for pricing a new pickup) is never mentioned, leaving that boundary to inference.

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