Get Pending Consignments by Reference 2

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the constraint 'Max 10 per request', which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not explain what 'pending' means or describe any additional behavior like ordering or error handling.

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 sentences plus a parameter listing. Every sentence provides essential information without any redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and full schema coverage. However, no output schema exists, and the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., list of consignment objects). It mentions 'finds' but not what is returned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'references', including its type, constraints, and description. The description repeats this information but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 finds pending consignments by the Reference 2 field using a specific verb ('finds'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_consignments_by_reference2 by specifying 'pending' consignments, but does not explicitly contrast with get_pending_consignments_by_reference1, relying on the name for differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_pending_consignments_by_reference1, get_consignments_by_reference2). No exclusions or context indicating when to avoid or prefer this tool are provided.

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