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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does this well by enumerating what the response includes (each deliverable's fields, late status, totals) and noting that the chosen as_of is reported. It doesn't explicitly state read-only safety or error behavior, but the extra output context is valuable.

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 with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the detail about response contents is packed efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential response structure and the as_of handling. It does not mention error cases or return format, but given the simplicity, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool 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% with both parameters already described. The description adds only a rephrasing of as_of ('as at a date') and mentions the answer will name the as_of used, which is output behavior rather than parameter semantics. It does not exceed the schema's baseline.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('one schedule in full as at a date'), clearly distinguishing this from a list operation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5, but the scope 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 implies this is the tool for fetching one schedule's full details, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus delivery_schedule_list or delivery_schedule_document. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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