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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the schema: the ordering (newest shipped first), the bounded summary field set, and the active-vs-archived default. It stops short of describing pagination defaults for limit/offset.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and result shape before the archived behavior and the pointer to the alternative tool. Every sentence carries information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and their ordering, and it covers scope (active vs archived) and where to go for richer detail. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and call this list tool is missing.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the archived semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a project's deliveries') and immediately characterizes the result shape ('newest shipped first, as bounded summaries: id, name, shipped date, batch and Work counts, and whether it has a presentation'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-type siblings like list_batches and from the detail-oriented get.

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?

Explicitly states the default scope ('Lists active deliveries; pass archived=true for archived ones') and routes the agent to an alternative when more detail is needed ('Call get with kind delivery for rationale, summary, and assigned batches'). The when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-get boundary is spelled out rather than inferred.

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