get_shipment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full line item detail, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or any side effects, though as a 'get' tool, read-only is implied. More detail on response shape or edge cases would improve transparency.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key distinction (line item detail). No filler or redundancy, earning a top score.

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 simple get tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does and its key return detail. It lacks explicit usage alternatives, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity. Not perfect, but above average.

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%, with both 'select' and 'shipmentNbr' clearly described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; 'full line item detail' complements the schema's 'header fields' for select but doesn't exceed it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a single Acumatica shipment with full line item detail' clearly states the verb (get), resource (Acumatica shipment), and scope (single, with full line item detail). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_shipments, which likely list multiple shipments, and other get/query tools for different resources.

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 for retrieving one specific shipment's details, contrasting with query_shipments for listing shipments. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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