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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by listing the exact data points returned (provider, reference id, third-party fee, Shipday charge, billable total, tracking URL) and by mapping it to the underlying GET /on-demand/details/{orderId} endpoint. It omits edge behavior such as what happens when no on-demand delivery is booked.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. Returned fields are front-loaded ahead of the endpoint reference, exactly the order an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description's field list is essential and covers the return shape well; the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. Only gap is that error/empty-case behavior (no on-demand booking present) is unaddressed.

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%, and the schema already clarifies that order_id is Shipday's internal numeric id, not the order number. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the endpoint template, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Details of the third-party on-demand delivery booked for an order') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (provider, reference id, fee, charge, billable total, tracking URL). An agent can distinguish it from shipday_get_on_demand_estimate or shipday_check_on_demand_availability because it describes already-booked delivery details, not a quote or availability probe.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'booked' suggests it applies after a delivery exists, versus estimate/availability siblings. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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