ghl_store_get_shipping_carrier

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

Annotations clearly indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. However, the description's claim of a 'list' operation contradicts the actual single-get behavior, undermining trust. No additional behavioral details (permissions, rate limits) are provided.

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 but contains redundant and misleading phrasing (e.g., 'List Shipping Carrier' for a get operation). It is not concise in a helpful way and wastes space with inaccurate 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?

No output schema is present, and the description fails to describe the return format or fields. For a simple get tool, the description should state what data is returned but does not, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 is adequately structured with examples, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. It fails to explain the purpose of 'altId' and 'altType' or how they relate to the carrier retrieval, leaving the agent to infer from examples only.

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 name 'get_shipping_carrier' suggests retrieving a single carrier, but the description calls it 'List Shipping Carrier' and mentions a paginated list, creating confusion. The endpoint includes an ID path parameter, indicating a single resource retrieval, not a list.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The sibling 'ghl_store_list_shipping_carriers' exists for listing, but the description incorrectly labels this as a list operation, further confusing usage.

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