track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only query, whether it requires authentication, what delivery status information it returns, or whether multiple shipment events are returned. For a tracking tool, the absence of output-behavior details is a meaningful gap.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, the target system, and the input identifier in minimal text. This is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has one string parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. For a tracking tool, the description should convey what status or result the user receives (e.g., shipment status, delivery progress, history). It does not mention return behavior or any side-effects, and with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns. Given the sibling get_order_history overlap, more context is warranted.

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% — the single doc_id parameter is documented as 'Номер накладной или заказа' (waybill or order number) in the schema. The description repeats the same parameter concept, adding little beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the description does clarify the identifier type aligns with the waybill number used in tracking.

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 states the tool's function: tracking a Деловые Линии (Business Lines) order by waybill number. It names the verb (отслеживание/tracking), the resource (заказ Деловых Линий), and the identifier (номер накладной). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish itself from sibling get_order_history, which likely serves a similar tracking/order-info purpose, reducing clarity of differentiation.

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?

There's no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. get_order_history in sibling tools likely overlaps in purpose for order-related queries, yet no exclusions or alternative guidance is given. The description only implies the use case (tracking a specific order by waybill number) without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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