Track BlueDart Shipment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the output includes status, expected delivery date, and optional scan history. It also explains response_format options. No contradictions. Some behaviors (rate limits, auth) are not mentioned, but annotations cover safety.

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 consists of two sentences: first sentence states the core purpose, second sentence details output and options. Every word contributes necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 tracking tool with three parameters, the description covers purpose, return values, and parameter effects. It explains both output formats. It could mention error handling (e.g., invalid AWB), but given the schema validation and read-only nature, the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how include_scans affects output (scan history) and describing response_format values ('markdown' for human-readable summary, 'json' for raw payload). This provides operational context beyond the schema.

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 tracks a BlueDart shipment by AWB number, specifies it is read-only, and outlines what it returns (status, expected delivery, scan history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bluedart_cancel_pickup or bluedart_generate_waybill, which have different purposes.

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 tracking via AWB number and offers format options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the sibling tool names are markedly different (cancel, generate, download etc.), the intent is clear and no conflict arises.

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