Get shipping async result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'confirmation of processing result' which essentially restates the tool name. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how to interpret the result, error conditions, or the role of the assertion_token.

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 short phrase, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified and does not add much beyond the tool name, making it only minimally acceptable in structure.

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 output schema, no annotations, and one parameter with no coverage, the description should provide substantial context. It only states the general purpose and lacks essential details about when to call, what the token is, and what the response looks like. The tool is simple but still severely under-documented.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the assertion_token parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on what the token is, how to obtain it, or how it relates to the async request. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: confirming the processing result of an asynchronous shipping completion report. The verb '確認' (confirm) and resource '発送完了報告（非同期）の処理結果' make it distinct from sibling tools like rms_update_shipping_async, which initiates the async operation.

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 context: it is for checking the result of an async operation. This is clear given the sibling tool rms_update_shipping_async. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the context is understandable.

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