List saved packages

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real semantic content: weight is 0 'when each label sets its own,' and `default` marks the one preselected on new shipments. Those two disclosures are non-obvious and prevent misreading the data. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether the list is account-scoped.

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?

Two short blocks, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the per-record field list, then the follow-up hint. Nothing is filler, though the second sentence is a dense run-on enumeration of fields that could be more scannable.

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 correctly assumes responsibility for describing return values and does so field by field, including the edge case for weight and the meaning of `default`. What is missing is scale/ordering information for a list endpoint and any tie-break against `list_package_types`.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its space explaining the shape of each returned record, which is the only parameter-adjacent semantics available here.

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 resource is named precisely ('Your Saved Packages from Settings') and the description enumerates exactly what each record holds: packaging type, size in inches, weight in ounces, signature, insured value, return label setting, flags, and the `default` marker. The read verb is only implied rather than stated, and the boundary with the sibling `list_package_types` is never drawn, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete downstream usage rule: 'Use an id in update_saved_package or delete_saved_package,' which tells the agent where the returned ids belong. However it offers no when-not guidance and never distinguishes this from `list_package_types`, `create_saved_package`, or `get_label_settings`, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with. Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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