delivery_performance

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

Discloses read-only nature and a limit of 1000 shipments, which are key behavioral traits. No annotations are present, so description carries the full burden. Could additionally mention data freshness or empty result handling.

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 sentences efficiently cover purpose, example, and behavioral notes. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description explains purpose, gives a usage example, and notes key behaviors. Could mention whether the result is a list of routes or a single aggregate, but overall sufficient.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds context about route-level aggregation but does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 it aggregates delivery performance per route with specific metrics (on-time rate, average transit days, exception counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual shipments (e.g., get_shipment, track_shipment).

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 a concrete usage example ('which route underperformed last month') and notes it's read-only. Does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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