Get Active Consignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful definitional detail that "active" means in-transit, but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or whether child-company inclusion changes the result set. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value detail is acceptable, but the operational behavior (pagination semantics of startIndex starting at 1, max retrieveSize 200) is left entirely to the schema.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The appended Args list largely duplicates an input schema that already documents every parameter at full coverage, so it is mild overhead rather than value, but it is short and does not obscure the main statement.

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 read-only, single-entity-scoped list tool with rich annotations, a full input schema, and an output schema, the definition covers what matters: what is returned and for which company. The main residual gap is disambiguation from the crowded family of sibling consignment listers, which the description does not address.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The Args block essentially restates the schema field descriptions ("Company ID", "Pagination start index", "Number to retrieve", "Filter by carrier") with no added meaning such as units, zero-vs-one-based indexing, or what happens when includeChildCompanies is omitted. It neither compensates for nor degrades the schema.

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?

"Returns all active (in-transit) consignments for a company" states a specific verb, resource, and a status qualifier that meaningfully narrows scope. The parenthetical "(in-transit)" lets an agent distinguish it from the many other consignment listers (all, recent, completed, unmanifested) without opening a schema, though it never names any of them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling list contains at least five near-identical retrieval tools (get_all_consignments, get_recent_consignments, get_completed_consignments, get_unmanifested_consignments, search_consignments), and the description gives no rule for choosing between them beyond the implied notion of "active". It also never mentions prerequisites such as needing a valid companyId or carrier scope.

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