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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by inventorying the returned fields (shipped date, rationale, summary, assigned batches, work progress, archived state), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema; it stops short of stating error behavior for a missing or unauthorized id.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and keying mechanism, with every listed clause earning its place as return-value information. No filler or 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the field inventory that an absent output schema would otherwise leave blank, making it largely self-sufficient. A note on not-found/error behavior would close the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Id of the Delivery.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or constraint detail for the id beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ('Get one delivery by id') and enumerates the payload (shipped date, rationale, summary, assigned batches, work progress, archived state). It implicitly contrasts with list_deliveries via 'one delivery by id', but never names a sibling such as get_delivery_presentation or get_work to disambiguate.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'by id' phrasing signals a lookup when a delivery id is already known, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer the context but gets no routing guidance among the many get_* and list_* siblings.

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