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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool saves the merged PDF to a specific directory ('~/Downloads/parcel-toolkit/') and that this can be overridden via an environment variable. It implies booking occurs. However, it does not mention API calls, authorization needs, or error handling, slightly reducing transparency.

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 three sentences: first states purpose and outcome, second gives usage context, third adds shared properties and output path. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description explains the output as a merged PDF and its save location. However, it does not specify the return value of the tool (e.g., success message or file path) or cover booking confirmations, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that all shipments share the same service, collection date, and sender, which is already captured in schema descriptions. The batch context is provided but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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's action ('Book multiple APC shipments at once') and its outcome ('return a single merged PDF containing every label, ready to print'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'book_shipment' by specifying batch behavior and usage when pasting a list of addresses. The verb 'book' and resource 'APC shipments' are specific.

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 provides a clear usage hint: 'Use this when the user pastes a list of orders/addresses.' It also notes that all shipments share the same service, collection date, and sender, indicating constraints. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing some guidance.

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

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

The description indicates that the tool returns a waybill, implying a write operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, cost implications, or whether the booking is immediate or asynchronous. With no annotations, the description falls short of fully informing the agent.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the essential action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or irrelevant details.

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 complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain error conditions, prerequisites, or how the output waybill relates to other tools. However, the rich schema descriptions partially compensate, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema covers all 12 parameters with descriptions, hitting 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Book a parcel delivery'), the carrier ('APC Overnight'), and the output ('22-digit waybill'). This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like cancel_shipment or list_services, which have different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the sibling names (e.g., book_batch_and_label) hint at alternatives, the description does not clarify when to choose this tool over others. The reference to list_services in the schema helps, but the description itself lacks context.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the timing constraint but omits potential side effects, irreversibility, or confirmation behavior.

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, no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose, second adds critical timing constraint. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers core purpose and constraint. Could elaborate on post-cancellation behavior but not essential.

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% and the description repeats the schema's indication of a 22-digit waybill. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'cancel' and the resource 'APC Overnight consignment'. Distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on booking, labeling, listing, or tracking.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (before collection/manifest). Does not mention alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough that no further guidance is needed.

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

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the schema: it polls for the label, saves to disk, returns a local file path, and has a configurable save directory via environment variable. This is valuable as no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention potential side effects or errors on the remote system.

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 four sentences long, with the primary action stated first ('Get the shipping label...'). Every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, timing/behavior, return value, and configuration. No redundant or vague language.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (file path), and how to configure save location. It lacks explicit error handling or timeout behavior, but is otherwise complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (waybill and format). The description adds context about the waybill source ('returned when booking') and explains the default save location and env var override, which are not in the schema. This adds practical value beyond the schema fields.

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 'Get the shipping label for a booked APC consignment and save it to disk', specifying the exact resource (APC consignment label) and action (get and save). It distinguishes itself from siblings like book_shipment (booking) and track_shipment (tracking) by focusing on label retrieval after booking.

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 explains when to call ('after book_shipment'), mentions a 3-5 second delay that is automatically polled, and indicates the output is saved to a specific location. While it provides clear context, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, such as using book_batch_and_label for batch operations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly notes that service availability depends on account and routing, advising confirmation with the depot, which adds important behavioral context beyond a simple list.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, no unnecessary words, and the caveat is efficiently included.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential return fields (key, label, ProductCode) and the critical caveat about availability, making it complete for an agent.

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 tool has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter information, but none is needed.

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 'List' and the resource 'every APC Overnight delivery service', and it distinguishes from sibling tools that perform different actions like booking or tracking.

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 implies that this tool should be used to retrieve available services before booking, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with invalid waybills. Only states it returns status and history.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and entity, making it quickly understandable.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It conveys the purpose and what it returns (status and tracking history). Could be enhanced by mentioning the output format, but not essential.

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% and the schema already describes the 'waybill' parameter as 'The 22-digit WayBill number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gets current status and tracking history for an APC Overnight consignment. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (booking, canceling, labeling).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or context signals. The description simply states what it does.

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