alonomic_parcel_statuses

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is static, no request is sent, and the instance parameter is ignored. This gives the agent complete transparency about the tool's side effects (none) and behavior.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence provides the core purpose, followed by a Persian translation and clear parameter explanation. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and return type. No gaps are apparent.

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 description adds meaning to the single parameter 'instance' by explaining it is accepted for symmetry and ignored, which goes beyond the schema's type/default info. With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable semantic context.

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 lists Alonomic parcel status codes and Persian labels, returning a static map. It distinguishes well from siblings which handle parcel creation, calculation, cancellation, etc., by specifying it's a static mapping with no request sent.

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 implies when to use (if you need status codes/labels) and indicates it's static and safe, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. The context of sibling tools suggests alternatives for other operations.

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