answer_shipping_query

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. It does not disclose what happens when 'ok' is true or false, whether shipping_options must be provided, or any side effects. Since readOnlyHint=false, the agent knows it's a write operation, but the description fails to elaborate on the consequences of the reply.

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 concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. The second clause about is_flexible adds useful context but is not essential to the core purpose. It is not overly verbose, yet the brevity sacrifices critical information.

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?

With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description needs to provide substantial guidance. It offers almost none, leaving the agent without a clear understanding of how to construct a valid reply or interpret the parameters. This is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about the parameters. The agent must infer that 'shipping_query_id' identifies the query, 'ok' indicates success, and 'shipping_options' or 'error_message' provide the response, but this is not stated. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Reply') and resource ('shipping queries'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like answer_pre_checkout_query. The condition 'Called if sendInvoice used is_flexible' provides additional context, though it could more explicitly state the purpose of approving/rejecting shipping options.

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 a specific trigger condition ('Called if sendInvoice used is_flexible'), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternative methods such as answer_pre_checkout_query, but the condition is sufficiently clear for basic selection.

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