robomart

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: flat pricing by network, live keys holding wallet funds, test keys creating free simulated deliveries, and the response naming the running network. The annotations already cover idempotent/destructive/readOnly intent, so no contradiction or major omission is evident.

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?

Three front-loaded, information-dense sentences: the action, pricing model, key behavior, and response hint. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes to correct selection and invocation.

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?

The description supplies important operational context — pricing, key modes, and a response hint — and the detailed schema covers parameter validation. But with no output schema and a complex 10-parameter input, it stops short of fully explaining return behavior, error cases, and required parameter semantics such as idempotency_key.

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 description provides no parameter-level guidance for any of the 10 schema properties, and schema description coverage is 0%. Required parameters like pickup_address, dropoff_address, and idempotency_key are undocumented in both the schema and description; the live/test key language refers to authentication context, not schema parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Book a pickup-ready delivery'), the resource, and key terms of the transaction in one sentence. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the booking action versus cancel, check, track, or proof.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this to book a delivery at a flat posted price, with live-key versus test-key behavior explained. It does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling names make the boundaries easy to infer.

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 the financial consequence ('full posted price releases back to the Wallet'), the post-pickup refusal behavior, and retry safety. These go beyond the annotations and align with idempotentHint=true, with no contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds distinct information: action window, financial outcome, and retry behavior. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 one-required-parameter cancellation tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover all invocation essentials: action, precondition, refund effect, refusal, and idempotency. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap for this operation.

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 description does not mention delivery_id or robomart_version at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so there is no parameter-level compensation. The generic word 'booking' does not add meaning beyond the already self-descriptive delivery_id property.

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 with the verb 'Cancel' and the object 'a booking', clearly identifying a delivery-cancellation action before pickup. The temporal qualifier 'before pickup' sharpens the scope and distinguishes it from siblings like book_delivery, track_delivery, and get_proof.

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?

'Before pickup' states an explicit precondition, and 'After pickup ... the call is refused' provides a clear when-not condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives among the sibling tools, but cancellation is semantically distinct enough from booking, coverage, proof, and tracking that the omission is minor.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a preview that returns network choice, price, eligibility, and arrival window, and it has no acceptance or booking side effect. 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The read-only nature is front-loaded, the return information is compactly listed, and the closing caveat about not being required for booking earns its place. Well-structured 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?

With no output schema, the description does provide a useful high-level summary of the response contents and the non-committal pre-booking context. However, it leaves some gaps for an agent: the policy enum semantics, optional parcel constraints, and the meaning of the pinned robomart_version are not addressed, so the description is strong 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. It never clarifies the meaning of the parcel dimensions, the policy enum values ('allow_roaming', 'on_network_only'), or robomart_version. Pickup and dropoff addresses are inferable from context, but the policy parameter is central to the network decision and is left entirely to 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 states a specific verb and resource: a read-only route preview. It enumerates the concrete outputs (network, flat price, eligibility, arrival window) and clearly separates itself from fulfillment siblings like book_delivery and track_delivery by framing it as pre-booking and non-committal.

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 gives clear usage context: use this before booking as a low-risk preview, and explicitly says there is 'nothing to accept' and it is 'never required before booking.' It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for tracking or cancellation), so it stops short of full explicit routing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds valuable sandbox behavior by noting that sandbox proof is explicitly marked simulated, which an agent would not know from annotations alone.

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 with no filler: the first states the core action and resource, and the second adds a relevant sandbox caveat. 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?

For a simple read-only retrieval with one required, schema-constrained parameter, the description and annotations are mostly complete. It does not describe failure behavior or the exact response shape, but 'retrieve the completion proof' adequately conveys the return concept for this simple 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 0%, and the description says nothing about delivery_id or robomart_version. The agent must infer the meaning of the delivery identifier from its name and the version parameter from its const value; the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('completion proof') and a specific action ('Retrieve'), and scopes it to 'a delivered job.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like book_delivery, cancel_delivery, check_coverage, and track_delivery.

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 phrase 'for a delivered job' implies the tool is appropriate only after a delivery has occurred, which supplies clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other delivery-related tasks.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a small behavioral nuance by specifying 'public tracking fields' and 'current status,' which hints at a filtered view rather than full delivery details. This is useful but not extensive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. The core operation and object scope are stated immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 read-only tool with clear annotations and one required parameter, the description provides basic completeness. However, there is no output schema and the description does not detail the return shape beyond 'public tracking fields,' leaving some ambiguity about the exact response.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention delivery_id or robomart_version at all. The phrase 'one delivery' weakly implies delivery_id identifies the target, but robomart_version remains unexplained beyond its const value.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current status and public tracking fields for one delivery'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_proof, but the content scope (status, tracking) is distinct enough from book/cancel/check_coverage.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_proof or check_coverage. The description only implies usage through its purpose, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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