shipping_methods_list

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 response includes full nested lists for parcel carriers and warns about multi-KB payloads per method, providing behavioral context beyond the 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 consists of two impactful sentences, front-loaded with the main action and endpoint. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, achieving high efficiency.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description covers the core purpose and notable response characteristics. However, it omits details about the 'site' parameter (e.g., enum values, case sensitivity) and does not mention pagination or sorting, leaving gaps for a production scenario.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'site' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description does not explain the purpose, format, or allowed values of 'site', leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 lists all shipping methods, specifies the endpoint, and highlights the significant detail of nested options[] lists for parcel-machine carriers. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that are either write operations or list other entities.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes the large payload size, which implies performance considerations, but lacks direct 'when-not-to-use' or references to sibling list tools.

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