report_delivery

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

The description indicates a write operation (POST) but does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or whether the action is reversible. It also does not mention any dependencies (e.g., must have a prior payment). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it lacks these behavioral details.

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 concise and to the point, with no redundant wording. It packs the essential information (action, endpoint, outcome values, and usage context) into a single sentence, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for when and why to use the tool ('after pay' and 'learn route quality'). It does not mention the response format or error handling, but since no output schema is defined, this is not strictly required. The description is adequate for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (origin, source, outcome, requestId), covering their meaning and defaults. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Report Gateway route delivery outcome') and specifies the HTTP method and endpoint ('POST gateway/track'). It also provides the outcome values ('delivered|not_delivered') and the contextual reason ('Call after pay so Cleared can learn route quality'). While it could be more explicit about the exact resource being updated, the verb and resource are clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 gives a specific condition for use ('Call after pay') and explains the purpose ('so Cleared can learn route quality'). It implies this is a post-action reporting step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about edge cases.

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