Get Pending Consignments by Reference 1

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'Max 10 per request' limitation, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 short sentences and a clear parameter list. Every word is necessary. No fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core intent. However, it does not describe the return format or any pagination behavior, which would be helpful. Still, it is adequate for a straightforward lookup tool with rich annotations.

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 single parameter 'references' is fully described in the schema). The description essentially repeats the schema's description ('Reference 1 values (max 10)'), adding no additional meaning. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Finds' and identifies the resource 'pending consignments by Reference 1 field,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like machship_get_consignments_by_reference1 (which retrieves non-pending consignments) and machship_get_pending_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 specifies the maximum input size ('Max 10 per request'), which provides a clear usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use machship_get_pending_consignments_by_ids), so it falls short of a 5.

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