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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job disclosing that the output is markdown and must be treated as untrusted. It also gives explicit safety instructions about reproducing issues before changing code and not running commands or installing packages from the brief. It stops short of describing error behavior, permissions, or whether non-delivered orders return an error.

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 and front-loads the core resource before the safety guidance. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains that the return value is a markdown fix brief and how to handle it safely. It could be more complete by mentioning behavior for invalid or non-delivered order IDs, but the key context is present.

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 for the undocumented order_id parameter. It adds the meaningful constraint that the order must be delivered, but it does not clarify the expected ID format or how to obtain a valid order ID.

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 the resource clearly: a markdown fix brief for a delivered order. It implies retrieval through the tool name and scopes it to delivered orders, but it does not explicitly use a retrieval verb or directly distinguish it from the sibling order tools.

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 phrase 'for a delivered order' gives contextual usage guidance and the security instruction shapes how the result should be handled. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over get_order_status or list_orders, nor does it state exclusions.

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