track_parcel

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It discloses the return format (raw JSON) and implicitly indicates a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first states the action, the second describes the output format. Excellent front-loading of key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no siblings), the description provides the essential purpose and return type. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (invalid tracking IDs) and assumes familiarity with YunTrack API.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'via YunTrack' context but does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (single vs multiple tracking numbers, max 3).

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 tool tracks parcels via YunTrack, with explicit reference to single or multiple tracking numbers and the return format (raw JSON). This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No alternative tools are provided, so explicit when-to-use guidance is less critical. However, the description does not explain when to use this tool specifically, e.g., for checking parcel status versus other tracking methods. Implies usage but lacks context.

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