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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuine context by disclosing that events originate from SES and are 'normalized,' which is real signal beyond the schema. But it says nothing about pagination, ordering, which event types are included, or the read-only nature of the call, which is only implied by the verb 'List.'

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?

Eight words with zero filler and the verb front-loaded. Every token ('List', 'normalized', 'SES', 'feedback', 'events', 'one', 'delivery') contributes verb, resource, data source, or scope.

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 two-parameter list operation with full schema coverage and no nested objects or enums, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (feedback events) and for what entity (a single delivery). Because there is no output schema, the agent must infer the exact return shape and pagination behavior, but given the low tool complexity these are minor gaps.

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% ('Delivery ID', 'Active organization ID'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The phrase 'for one delivery' adds marginal semantics by tying delivery_id to a singular scope, but the description does not clarify the relationship between organization_id and delivery_id (e.g., authorization scoping) beyond what the parameter names already suggest.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('normalized SES feedback events') scoped to 'one delivery,' so the operation is unmistakable. The 'feedback events' phrase implicitly differentiates it from the sibling commsharbor_delivery_get (which presumably fetches the delivery record itself), but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top tier.

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 implies the call context: use this when you hold a delivery_id and want the SES feedback events for that single delivery. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., commsharbor_delivery_get for the delivery record, commsharbor_domain_deliveries for domain-wide lists) nor states any when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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