wafle_shipping_carriers_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that it makes one API call per configured carrier and reports statuses with latency. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value: what it does, what it reports, and when to use it. No filler or repetition.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, output summary, and usage trigger. It is slightly light on response structure details, but adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100% for the single param (slug), with a clear example. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Run the carrier connection self-test') and clearly states what the tool does: 'Hits each configured carrier API once and reports ok|degraded|down + latency.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_gateways_test or wafle_system_health.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when shipping rates are flaky or empty.' While it doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear and actionable, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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