track

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and input; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what kind of result or status data will be returned, how errors are handled, or whether any side effects occur. This is minimal coverage for an unannotated tool.

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, short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and identifies the key input. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool, this is minimally adequate: the agent knows what the tool does and what input to provide. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the complete absence of behavioral or return information leaves the agent guessing about the outcome of a successful call.

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% and the sole parameter tracking_number is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the parameter concept, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding with examples or format details.

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 operation (tracking) and the resource (Boxberry shipment) with the key input (tracking number). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_cities or calc_delivery, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than as an explicit verb+object construction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The phrase 'by tracking number' weakly implies a use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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