Get Consignments by Reference 1

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behaviors. The description adds a critical behavioral constraint ('Max 10 per request') that is not captured by annotations, increasing transparency. 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 extremely concise: two lines for the main description and one line for the argument. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, constraint, and parameter format. The existing annotations and schema provide sufficient context, and the description fills the gap by adding the request limit.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description essentially restates the schema ('references (string[]): Array of Reference 1 values (max 10)'). No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided, so the baseline score 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 action ('Finds'), resource ('consignments by their Reference 1 field'), and a key constraint ('Max 10 per request'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_consignments_by_ids and get_consignments_by_reference2.

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 when you have Reference 1 values but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Among many similar fetch tools, no guidance is given on differentiation.

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