Search Consignments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Searches' aligns without contradiction. The description adds context on search fields but does not detail result format, pagination, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (two sentences plus Args) with front-loaded purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's function without unnecessary 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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers the search intent. However, it lacks details on the return values (e.g., consignment fields) and assumes output format, leaving some ambiguity for a search tool.

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% with a clear description of 'references'. The description adds minimal extra meaning by specifying the array of reference strings and the search fields, but essentially restates the schema. 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 clearly states the verb 'Searches' and the resource 'consignments', specifying search by reference numbers (Reference 1, Reference 2, or carrier IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_consignments_by_reference1 by offering a combined search, but could explicitly differentiate.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like machship_get_consignments_by_reference1 or machship_get_consignments_by_reference2. The description implies usage for reference searches but does not provide when-not-to-use or compare to siblings.

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