track_shipment

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions that tracking_number hyphens/spaces are auto-removed, a helpful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling for invalid inputs.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences: first defines purpose, second details arguments. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.

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, description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, arg details, and a behavioral note. For a simple lookup tool with 2 required params, this is adequately complete.

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%, so description adds meaning. For 'carrier', it lists example values (yamato, sagawa, japanpost). For 'tracking_number', it explains it must be digits and auto-removes hyphens/spaces, which is not evident from the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb '返す' (return) and resource '現在の配送状況' (current delivery status). It distinguishes from siblings 'get_tracking_history' and 'list_carriers' by implying it returns the latest status rather than history or carrier list.

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?

Description indicates when to use (to get current status for a carrier and tracking number) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling names imply other tools but are not mentioned.

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