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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful operational context: sell scope and API key authentication. It does not explain the consequence of the non-idempotent hint (e.g., what happens on a duplicate delivery) or whether this is reversible.

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 the core action and input-mode constraint front-loaded, followed by auth requirements. No filler or repetition.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and five parameters, the description should explain the required identifiers and the role of mime_type. Instead it covers only the two file-content parameters, so an agent must infer what order_id/file_name are and what the call returns.

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 0%, so the description carries the load for the file inputs and does clarify that file_url and file_base64 are alternatives ('either ... or'). It says nothing about order_id, file_name, or mime_type, leaving three of five parameters uninterpreted beyond their names.

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 ('Deliver the finished work as a file') and constrains the delivery mode to one of two inputs (file_url or file_base64). It clearly occupies the delivery slot in the order lifecycle, but never names the neighboring steps (request_revision, approve_order) it is distinct from.

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?

Gives prerequisites ('Needs sell scope. Requires an API key.') which helps the agent confirm it can call the tool at all. However, it never says when to deliver versus request a revision or how delivery interacts with approve_order, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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