Strong foundation with 34 well-named, read-only tools covering a comprehensive Mintsoft WMS API surface. All tools have descriptions (avg ~90 chars, within baseline 34-392 range) and explicit input schemas with typed parameters. Naming follows verb_noun convention consistently (get_, list_, search_, track_). However, descriptions are terse and lack LLM-optimized guidance on WHEN to use each tool vs. alternatives, dependency hints, or recovery paths. Parameter descriptions are minimal (often just the field name restated). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure for chaining. Error handling is absent from tool definitions. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) despite all being read-only. Pagination is present but inconsistently documented.

• Add output schema documentation to every tool. Specify the response object structure, field types, and which fields are guaranteed vs. optional. E.g., get_order returns {order_id: int, order_number: string, status_id: int, items: [...], ...}.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-150 chars with LLM-optimized guidance: WHAT it does, WHEN to use it vs. similar tools, and any prerequisites. E.g., 'Get full order details by numeric ID. Use this after search_orders() returns an order_id, or if you already know the ID. Returns items, comments, and tracking info.'
• Add format/range constraints to parameter descriptions. E.g., 'order_id: The numeric order ID (1-10 digits, required)' or 'limit: Results per page (1-100, default 50)'. Include examples of valid values for enums.
• Annotate all tools with readOnlyHint=true to signal to LLMs that these are safe, non-destructive calls. This enables confident tool selection without confirmation overhead.
• Implement error handling that returns actionable recovery paths. E.g., if get_order(12345) fails with 'not found', return 'Order 12345 not found. Try search_orders(order_number=...) to find the correct ID, or list_orders(status_id=1) to browse new orders.'