Shipping Carriers Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the required `read_shipping` scope (an auth prerequisite) and the pinned API version 2025-03, which tells the agent the response shape is version-specific.

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?

Four short lines with the purpose front-loaded, followed by endpoint, scope, and version. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a single-record read with complete annotations, a fully documented three-parameter schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials including auth scope. The only minor gap is not saying anything about error behavior for an invalid ID or what a carrier object contains.

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%: `id`, `fields`, and `response_format` are all documented in the schema, including the markdown/json enum. The description contributes nothing further (e.g. that `id` must be a carrier ID already obtained from the list endpoint), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Get one shipping carrier" names a specific verb and resource, and the word "one" implicitly separates it from the sibling list/update/delete carrier tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings or explain how the returned carrier relates to carrier options, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 usage by requiring an `id` and stating the `read_shipping` scope, from which an agent can infer this is a single-record read after resolving an ID. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `tiendanube_shipping_carriers_list` or `tiendanube_shipping_carrier_options_list`, and no handling for a missing/unknown ID.

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