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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be non-mutating. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns per-attempt status, timing, and a payload hash, and explicitly never returns the delivered body. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The opening phrase immediately orients the agent, and the 'Read-only.' tag reinforces behavior without bloating. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, timing, payload hash) and the key exclusion (no delivered body). Combined with fully documented parameters, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Exact status values and ordering are not specified, but this is acceptable for a list-style read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both binding_id and limit are already documented in the input schema. The description adds general context about delivery attempts and result contents, but it does not add parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 opens by defining the resource as 'the delivery ledger for a binding' and frames the purpose with 'did the partner receive it?'. It then specifies the output components: status, timing, and a payload HASH per attempt. This clearly distinguishes it from list_partner_bindings and other binding-related tools by focusing on delivery attempts.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to check whether a partner received a delivery and to view delivery attempt metadata. The explicit note that it never returns the delivered body helps prevent misuse. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is unmistakable.

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