describe_ship_receiptExplains what Ship Receipt is, which receipt fields it accepts, available paper styles, and how the privacy model works.
Explain what Ship Receipt is, which fields a receipt takes, the paper styles, and the privacy model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail by enumerating the content the response will contain (fields, paper styles, privacy model), but does not describe the response shape or whether the answer is static documentation versus a live data query.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the covered topics. No filler, no restatement of the title beyond what is needed to convey scope.
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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool with full annotation coverage, the description gives enough to know what knowledge it returns. The only remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't indicate how the explanation is structured or whether it's static text.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for zero-param tools applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to retrieve this reference material.
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?
States a specific verb ('Explain') plus the exact subject matter: what Ship Receipt is, its fields, paper styles, and privacy model. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling generate_receipt (this informs, that produces), though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling to reinforce the contrast.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the reference lookup to call before or instead of generate_receipt, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' instruction or exclusion. Adequate for a zero-parameter informational tool, but the routing guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed