track_shipment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat those. It adds value by disclosing the specific data returned (vessel call times, delays, container moves), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Where a shipment is') and immediately followed by specifics. No filler or redundancy, every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the essential what and why. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but given the simplicity and output schema presence, it is adequately complete.

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%: the parameter 'reference' is fully described as 'A booking reference or a container number such as LSMU1000013'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but since the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it reports where a shipment is by providing vessel call times (planned, estimated, actual) and includes delay information and container moves. This is a specific verb-resource mapping, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_booking or find_sailings, so it falls 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?

The description implies usage: if you want to know a shipment's location and timing, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., get_booking for booking details, find_sailings for schedules) and does not state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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