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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true; the description adds significant context: it mentions the delivery is REAL and signed, returns status/body/signature, and creates a delivery row that persists in the log. It doesn't cover auth/permissions or rate limits, but for a test tool this is good transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the rationale. Zero waste and well-structured.

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 what it does, what it returns, and the side effect (delivery row creation). With an output schema present, return value details needn't be explained, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements or potential impact on the endpoint owner. Still sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default event name is in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Send a REAL signed test delivery to a registered endpoint') and clarifies the exact output returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like volanea_check_delivery by emphasizing the test-and-prove-signature purpose.

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?

Clearly explains when to use it: 'This is how you prove the signature-verification code you wrote actually verifies, rather than assuming it does.' However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like volanea_check_delivery or warn about side effects on production data beyond the delivery-log note.

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