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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that claim/create are mutations and read/download are retrievals, and surfaces required body fields, but it does not state permission requirements, reversibility, idempotency semantics (despite an idempotency_key parameter existing), or side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose followed by a compact action-to-endpoint mapping. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic endpoint notation is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 complex five-action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 9% schema coverage, the description covers the action surface and parts of the body but omits return behavior, parameter meanings for most fields, and the sequencing between claim/create. It is minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is only 9% across 11 parameters and the nested body object is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by listing the body fields for claim (agency_agent_id, vertical) and create (passport_token, client_claim_token, client_agent_id, client_tag, vertical, brand_name), but leaves many parameters (handle, wanted_id, transfer_id, idempotency_key, delete_credential, payment_signature) unexplained.

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 names a specific resource (client redeliveries) and enumerates the five concrete operations (list, claim, create, read, download) with their endpoints, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like receipt or settlement. It is slightly muddled by bundling five verbs into one tool, but each is identifiable.

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 action list implies when each operation applies, and the endpoint/body hints give selection cues, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., that claim must precede create) or when to prefer one action over another. Usage must be inferred from the verb names.

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