query_shipments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List and filter' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety or disclose behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format. It adds some context about use cases but not deeper transparency about side effects or limitations.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function; the second lists example use cases. No redundant or irrelevant information, and the content is front-loaded.

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 list/filter tool with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and common use cases. However, it does not mention that results can be paginated (via top/skip) or that it returns a collection, but these are inferable from the parameters. Given the simplicity and read-only nature, the description sufficiently supports tool selection and invocation.

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 each parameter thoroughly described including examples. The tool description adds only high-level use cases (analytics, tracking, finding) that map loosely to the filter parameter, but provides no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything.

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's function: 'List and filter Acumatica shipments.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_shipment, which likely retrieves a single shipment. The mention of analytics, tracking, and finding by customer or warehouse further clarifies purpose.

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 provides explicit use cases ('Use this for shipment analytics, tracking open or completed shipments, or finding shipments by customer or warehouse'). This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over others, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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