Get a delivery

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that retry attempts are included in the response — but says nothing about not-found/error behavior or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the useful detail (retry attempts) is placed immediately after the core purpose.

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 and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, yet it leaves 'debug' entirely undefined and omits failure behavior. Rich annotations cover safety, but not enough to make this definition complete for correct invocation.

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 must carry parameter meaning and does not. The required 'id' is only inferable from the tool name, and the 'debug' boolean is completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell what it changes or when to set it.

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 verb 'Inspect' plus the resource 'one delivery' is specific, and 'and its retry attempts' scopes what comes back, distinguishing it from list_deliveries and retry_dead_letter. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, but the singular scoping makes the distinction inferable.

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 by the singular 'one delivery' phrasing; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_deliveries or how to obtain the required id. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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