aiva_get_delivery_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Get' but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose, missing key behavioral details needed for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place by clarifying the resource and filtering options.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't address other critical aspects like what the tool returns or how it behaves, making it insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'customerId' and 'days' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'upcoming deliveries', specifying it can be for 'a customer or all subscriptions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'aiva_get_subscription' or 'aiva_list_subscriptions' by focusing on delivery schedules rather than subscription details or lists. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'aiva_get_customer', which might overlap in customer context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering by customer or all subscriptions but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'aiva_get_subscription' for delivery info or how it relates to 'shopify_get_orders'. This lack of context leaves usage ambiguous.

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