track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the tracking function, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose what the response contains, potential errors, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the purpose. It contains no extraneous information and avoids repetition, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one documented parameter, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not explain the expected return value (e.g., delivery status events) or any usage constraints, leaving a noticeable gap for a tracking tool.

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 'barcode' parameter is described with an example ('RA123456789RU'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 is specific: 'Отслеживание почтового отправления Почты России по трек-номеру' (tracking a Russian Post postal item by track number). It clearly names the verb (tracking), the resource (Russian Post postal item), and the method (by track number), distinguishing it from sibling tools like zip_lookup or delivery_time.

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 implies usage when a track number is available, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It relies on the obvious context of having a barcode, but does not mention prerequisites or exceptions.

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