Track a parcel

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context beyond that by explaining authentication requirements: no login for full numbers, signed-in session for short prefixes. This clarifies potential side effects/access needs, which is valuable behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a single clarifying nuance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, readOnlyHint, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does and how the parameter behaves. It doesn't explain the return format, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, this is a minor gap, making the tool adequately complete.

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?

The schema describes shipmentNumber only as 'Shipment number to track', but the description enriches this by explaining that full numbers work publicly and short prefixes require signed-in context. This adds semantic meaning that goes beyond the schema, though it stops short of defining format specifics.

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 provides 'public tracking for any InPost shipment number' with a specific verb ('track') and resource ('shipment'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the public nature and the special short-prefix behavior, which aligns with the tool name and title.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use: for any shipment number, with full numbers requiring no login and short prefixes matched against signed-in parcels. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like inpost_consumer_get_parcel, the description implies the tool's public scope and input handling rules, providing adequate usage guidance.

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