clm_get_shipment_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful context that the result is 'smaller' and 'external-facing', but it does not disclose failure behavior, id-type nuances, or any integration-specific differences beyond the tool's name.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every phrase adds value: 'smaller', 'external-facing', and 'native CLM or KonsHub-linked' all carry meaning without wasted words.

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 simple read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this over clm_get_shipment or other shipment detail tools, plus no elaboration on what 'KonsHub-linked' changes in practice.

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 already provides 100% coverage: shipment_id is required and described as 'The shipment's id.' The description adds no additional meaning about id format, whether it is a CLM id or an external/KonsHub id, or any constraints. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a shipment's smaller, external-facing summary'), and even distinguishes two supported variants ('native CLM or KonsHub-linked'). This differentiates it from siblings like clm_get_shipment and other shipment-detail tools.

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 phrase 'smaller, external-facing summary' implies it should be used when a concise, externally shareable snapshot is needed rather than full shipment details. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like clm_get_shipment or states when not to use it, leaving usage selection partly to inference.

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