cdek_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output (status, history, delivery details) and that it can access orders from other channels, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a parameter line, no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (one parameter, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks guidance on sibling differentiation and behavioral details such as errors or prerequisites, which would be helpful for full autonomous use.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds essential meaning by naming the parameter 'cdek_number' as the CDEK tracking number and providing an example (1234567890). This compensates for the bare schema.

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 it retrieves order information by CDEK tracking number, specifying the API endpoint and returned data (status, history, delivery details). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like cdek_get_order or cdek_get_order_by_im_number, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions it works for orders created through personal account and other channels, it lacks exclusion criteria or pointers to other tracking tools.

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