track_parcel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: carrier auto-detection, the return structure (statuses, events order, etc.), and default parameter values. This is comprehensive without 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 front-loaded with purpose and organized into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. Still efficiently conveys all necessary 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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields including status enum values, events ordering, and web_url. It covers input, behavior, and output completely for a parcel tracking 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare input schema. It explains tracking_number as 'carrier tracking number / piece code' and lists valid carrier codes for carrier parameter. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's action ('Track a parcel') and the resources involved ('status, ETA and event history'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools 'detect_carrier' and 'list_carriers' which have different purposes.

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 provides implied usage (e.g., carrier auto-detection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or any when-not scenarios. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion context.

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