alopeyk_tracking_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is local (no network call), returns a formatted URL, and uses environment-specific base. It also includes a Persian note. This provides adequate behavioral context beyond the schema.

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: a single main sentence, a Persian note, a format line, and two bullet-point args. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key purpose. No extraneous information.

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 that an output schema exists (marked true), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and special notes (no network call, Persian purpose). For a simple URL-building tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: order_token is the tracking token from a created order, instance is the configured instance to derive the base URL. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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 specifies the verb 'build', the resource 'public tracking URL', and the input 'order token'. It distinguishes from network calls by stating 'no network call'. Compared to siblings, this tool uniquely constructs a URL without a remote request.

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 states when to use (to build a tracking URL from an order token) and that it makes no network call, implying it's low-cost. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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