TracePass EPCIS 2.0

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

With only idempotentHint: false in annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so extensively. It marks four actions as read-only, reveals that capture returns a 202 with a captureJobId and is asynchronous, and discloses specific error conditions like 409 ambiguous_serial and 403-style messages. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a concise lead sentence, a critical plan-requirement note, and a clean action-by-action bullet list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the multi-action tool easy to scan and understand.

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 the tool's complexity (five actions, nested args, async behavior, plan restrictions), the description is complete. It covers all actions, their required args, error conditions, and asynchronous behavior. Return values are not detailed, but an output schema exists, so that omission is acceptable.

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?

Although the schema already has 100% description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning beyond it. It maps each parameter to its action, clarifies that a serial is unique only within a GTIN, explains that events can be an EPCISDocument or an array, and gives examples of EPCIS query parameters. This goes well beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 purpose: 'GS1 EPCIS 2.0 supply-chain events.' It then enumerates each specific action (export, export_by_serial, capture, capture_job, query) with a precise verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tracepass_passports and tracepass_products.

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 usage context: it notes which actions are included on Starter plans vs. require the paid add-on, and explains when to use export_by_serial versus export with a GTIN. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the action-level guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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