list_consignments

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful context with 'Version-cursor paged,' which tells the agent this is a paginated list endpoint, though it does not explain cursor mechanics.

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 and front-loads the resource categories, then filters, then pagination. It is telegraphic but efficient; no sentence is wasted, though sentence fragments reduce readability slightly.

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?

Given existing safety annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough context to call the list endpoint correctly for common type/status filtering. The main remaining gap is outlet_id and exact pagination parameter semantics.

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, and it does explain type and status values plus cursor-based pagination. However, it omits outlet_id entirely and does not clarify after versus page_size semantics.

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 names the resource domain precisely by defining consignments as stock orders, transfers, returns, and stocktakes, which is clearer than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly say 'list' or contrast with get_consignment, but the paged phrasing implies a collection endpoint.

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 supplies valid type and status values, which implies how to filter the list, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as get_consignment. Usage is inferable from the filter examples rather than stated.

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