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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying HTTP endpoints and the 'only when really ready' correctness caveat, but says nothing about what happens on a repeated or invalid call, or what the response confirms.

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?

Three short sentences ordered well: action, selection constraint, precondition. The trailing HTTP endpoint listing is marginal for an agent caller but does not bloat the description meaningfully.

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 simple, idempotent, non-destructive signal tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the decision rule and precondition an agent needs. Failure modes and confirmation behavior are the only notable omissions.

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 each parameter's meaning is already documented. The description's real contribution is the mutual-exclusivity rule ('exactly one of'), which the schema does not encode (no required fields, no oneOf), but it adds nothing about order_ready_at semantics beyond the schema.

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 action (mark an order ready for courier collection) and precisely scopes it to the Stuart job/delivery domain. The second sentence distinguishes the two granularities (whole job vs. single delivery), which lets an agent pick the right variant without consulting siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to pass exactly one of job_id or delivery_id and warns to send it only when the order is genuinely ready. It does not name a sibling or an exclusion (e.g., versus stuart_cancel_delivery or re-sending after a prior call), so the alternative-routing guidance is implicit rather than complete.

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