Raw Yango Delivery API call

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description adds crucial details: state-changing operations possible, retry only for GETs on 5xx/network errors, and specifics about how query and body are mapped. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradiction.

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 two well-structured sentences plus a focused caution. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, follows with usage details, and ends with safety warning. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 open-ended nature and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, parameter behavior, and risk—sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It is remarkably complete for an escape-hatch tool.

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?

While the schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful context: paths are relative to the API root, query becomes query string, body is sent as JSON, and method defaults to POST. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and clarifies the HTTP mapping.

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 identifies the tool as an escape hatch for direct calls to the Yango Delivery API, explicitly listing example endpoints and specifying it is for endpoints without a dedicated tool. This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_claim or cancel_claim.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance by stating 'for endpoints without a dedicated tool' and giving concrete examples. It also cautions about state-changing operations and retry behavior, which helps agents decide when to use it versus safer dedicated tools.

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