track_shipment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what information is returned, or that authentication is required for item-based lookup beyond what the schema already mentions. This is a significant gap.

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 fronts the primary verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too minimal. It fails to mention return format, authentication requirements for the item_id path (only in schema), or any error/edge cases. The tool's dual-mode behavior is described, but important contextual details are missing.

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%, and the description adds a small amount of context by clarifying that tracking_number and item_id represent two alternative lookup modes. However, it does not explain the syntax or relationships beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Track a shipment by tracking number, or look up tracking for a specific item from your order history.' It uses a specific verb ('track') and identifies the resource (shipment), and distinguishes from siblings like track_bids by focusing on shipment tracking.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a tracking number or want to track an item from order history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the two usage modes make the intended scenarios obvious relative to sibling tools.

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