What is still to pack

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It explicitly discloses edge-case handling ('a packed line with no ordered line is reported, never dropped') and the three output categories. It stops short of stating whether it mutates anything, but the tool appears to be an analytical/reporting operation.

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 short, front-loaded, and information-dense. It states the core comparison first and then clarifies the key edge-case behavior without any 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?

For a single-parameter report tool, the description covers what the tool does, what it compares, and how unmatched packed lines are handled. It does not detail return formatting or explicitly say 'read-only,' but the purpose and inputs are sufficiently clear for correct invocation.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema with an example, so the description adds no new parameter-level guidance. This is acceptable because the schema already covers the needed context for the packing list identifier.

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 immediately states what the tool does: it compares ordered versus packed quantities and, line by line, surfaces shortfalls, over-packs, and packed-but-not-ordered items. This is specific and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like packing_slip or packing_list_status.

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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever you need to see what is missing, over-packed, or packed without an order line. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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