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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that uploaded files are hashed server-side, a temporary download link is generated, text files get a preview, and external links have their hash checked. Authentication requirements are stated. It stops short of describing failure modes such as a hash mismatch or an expired link.

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 three dense sentences that front-load the core action and verification, with no filler. The auth prerequisite trails at the end, but overall it is tight.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers what comes back: a temporary download link, a text preview, and hash-check results. That is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, with only the chainId parameter left unexplained.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates only partially: the login requirement implies sessionToken, but chainId is never mentioned in either the description or the schema, and orderId semantics get no elaboration beyond 'of an order'.

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 names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (the deliverable of an order) and adds the verification step against an on-chain SHA-256. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_delivery, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 states a prerequisite (must be logged in as the buyer or seller) but never says when to choose this over get_delivery or get_order_status. Usage is implied by the verification angle rather than stated.

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