api_get_v1_package_status

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 it is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as authentication requirements, response format, or what the status details include. It fails to add value beyond the annotations.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks substantive detail needed for the agent to understand the tool's purpose, making it more of a placeholder than a concise, informative description.

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?

No output schema and minimal description. Given multiple sibling status tools (e.g., get_package_status, get_delivery_status), the description is incomplete because it does not clarify what makes this tool unique, what the response contains, or in which contexts it should be chosen.

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% with each parameter (key, dry_run, pack_id) having a description. The tool description itself does not add parameter information, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 'GET /api/v1/package_status — Статус отправки v1' essentially restates the tool name in Russian, providing only that it retrieves package status. It does not clearly define what 'status' means or differentiate from sibling tools like get_package_status and get_delivery_status.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, despite the presence of several closely related status tools among the siblings.

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