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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a public read-only-style ledger, which implies no auth or side effects, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any operational constraints such as rate limits or freshness of data.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core identity ('Public delivery ledger') and then efficiently enumerates the returned data. Every phrase contributes information without redundancy.

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—no parameters, no output schema, no annotations—the description provides a reasonably complete picture: it is a public aggregate view of delivery performance. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that it returns summary metrics rather than detailed order data, but the listed contents largely cover that.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the result contains rather than input semantics, which is all that is needed here.

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 identifies a specific resource (public delivery ledger) and names the key data it exposes: totals, delivered-or-refunded percentage, volume, countries, and recent orders. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like order_status or list_offers, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'view'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It only states that the ledger is public, leaving the agent to infer that it is appropriate for aggregate delivery stats but not for specific order or quote queries.

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