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

The description discloses output content (delivery tiers, ETA, cut-off time, CAD fee), states that fees are customer-facing, and explains the free-delivery threshold behavior. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by describing what the read returns and how the free-tier logic works. The province parameter description also adds behavioral context about non-BC orders being quoted as freight.

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 plus an example, all front-loaded with the key behavior. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the inputs and outputs, the second gives a concrete use case, and the fee/threshold note is relevant caller guidance. No wasted words.

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 adequately covers the return values (delivery tiers with ETA, cut-off, fee) and the main input constraint (city in BC, optionally province). The free-delivery threshold and customer-facing fee note complete the essential caller knowledge. Nothing critical is missing for a 3-parameter read-only 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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a small but meaningful layer by mentioning the free-delivery threshold tied to orderSubtotalCAD and clarifying the BC scope for city. This reinforces the schema's meaning without over-duplicating it.

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 clearly states the specific action: given a delivery city, return MapleV's available delivery tiers with ETA, cut-off time, and CAD fee. It also provides a concrete example question, which removes ambiguity. The sibling tools are all about parts and categories, so this tool's delivery-focused purpose is distinctly 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 description provides clear usage context through the example question and by specifying BC as the relevant geography. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but none of the sibling tools serve a similar delivery-options purpose, so no exclusion is necessary. The province parameter's note about non-BC being freight further clarifies the edge case.

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