track_shipment

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the description's burden is lower. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned data, but says nothing about failure modes (order not found, no shipment on file) or latency/auth considerations.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the returned-fields summary front-loaded and the invocation condition following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one required parameter, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description appropriately fills the return-value gap by enumerating the fields returned. It is essentially complete for a simple read tool, missing only edge-case behavior.

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% and the single order_id parameter is documented in the schema with a concrete example (NW-5001). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: carrier, tracking number, delivery status, ETA and scan history for an order. An agent can immediately distinguish this shipment-tracking read from siblings like get_order or lookup_customer.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Call this when the customer asks where a parcel is or when it will arrive.' That is clear usage context, but it names no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_order for order-level questions), 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.