Get package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, ensuring the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by stating that the response includes 'units and stage checks', which is additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. There are no contradictions.

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 a single, 14-word sentence that immediately conveys the core action and key details. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

While the tool is a simple read operation with good annotations, the description does not explain what 'stage checks' are, what units represent, or the structure of the response. Since there is no output schema, additional clarity would help the agent understand the returned data. The description covers basic usage but lacks detail.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id or code' (covering packageId and packageCode) and 'including units' (hinting at includeUnits and unitLimit), but does not explicitly define each parameter's purpose, default, or constraints. For 4 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 retrieves a cargo package by id or code, including units and stage checks. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and distinguishes from sibling tools like limu_get_cargo (which gets cargo) and limu_get_shipment.

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 via two identifiers (id or code) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose one over the other, nor does it differentiate from alternatives like limu_list_packages or explain prerequisites. Usage context is only implied.

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