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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' inherently signals a read-only operation, and the returned fields are specified. However, the description does not disclose potential authentication requirements, pagination/ordering behavior, or whether all delivery statuses are included. This is acceptable for a simple list but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the returned fields, then adds a motivational usage clue. There is no wasted text; the em-dash phrase is purposeful and compact.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool — one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects — the description covers the essentials: it lists what the tool returns and when to use it. It could add explicit read-only confirmation or ordering details, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward list operation.

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% — the schema already fully documents task_id. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the resource is a task ('on a task'). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all deliveries on a task' and enumerates the returned fields (delivery_id, agent, evidence, timestamps). This distinguishes it from siblings like deliver_task (which creates a delivery) and list_tasks (which lists tasks, not deliveries). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 context for when to use this tool: 'scout the competition before you deliver'. This implies it should be used to inspect existing deliveries prior to submitting your own, which helps an agent decide when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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