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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the privacy behavior (returns only flags/timestamps and hasEvidence, never evidence summary content) and explains the auto-confirmation behavior. However, it omits pagination, error handling, and authentication requirements.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes state definitions and privacy note. It is efficient but somewhat long; a more concise structure would improve readability without losing content.

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 covers purpose, state semantics, and privacy, which is strong for a tool with no output schema or annotations. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior and authentication, which are relevant for a list endpoint.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for 'state' (defines each enum value) and 'sessionId' (lookup), but does not explain page, limit, apiKey, or orgSlug beyond their generic role. This partial coverage is insufficient for a 0% schema coverage.

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 tool lists the delivery-confirmation ledger for an organization's sessions, with a specific resource ('DeliveryProof overlay') and verb ('List'). It distinguishes itself from sibling confirmations tools by detailing the three-state model and session lookup.

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: filter by state or look up by sessionId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is unambiguous for the intended scenarios.

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