List packing lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses ordering (newest first), the 500-row limit, the output fields, and the filtering dimensions. This is solid coverage, though it does not mention failure modes, authorization, or what happens when no matching lists exist.

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?

Three short sentences: the first front-loads the main behavior and output, the second lists filters, and the third states the hard cap. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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?

Given five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose, filters, ordering, and row limit. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool; small gaps like how the 500-row limit is enforced or how divisor interacts with results are left to the schema.

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 has 100% coverage, with each parameter already described, so the baseline is 3. The tool description names only three of the five filters (status, reference, consignee) and adds no new meaning for divisor or open_only, which are already well explained in the schema.

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 identifies the resource (packing lists) and the operation (list, newest first), and enumerates the returned fields: cartons, units, gross weight, and short ordered lines. This distinguishes it from siblings like packing_list_create, packing_list_show, and packing_list_delete without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list packing lists with optional filters and a 500-row cap. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as packing_list_show for a single list, nor state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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