deliveries_retrieve__get_deliveries_by_delivery_date_and_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral constraints: a 10-requests-per-60-seconds MCP-server throttle, a caching recommendation, and the 7-day data availability guarantee. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the ID prerequisite, then the throttling/caching guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the key operational constraints and the organizationIds prerequisite, which is useful. It omits any comparison to nearby sibling tools and does not mention return or pagination behavior, but the annotations and schema provide enough for basic 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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters, but it only maps high-level filters (statuses/dates/couriers) and tells where to get organizationIds. It leaves date formats, courierIds semantics, statuses, and sourceKeys unexplained, which is weak compensation.

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 states the resource (orders) and the main filter dimensions (statuses, dates, couriers), which is concrete and specific. It is distinguishable from phone-based, revision-based, and single-ID delivery tools among the siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 clear operational context: where to obtain organizationIds and a throttling/caching rule for repeated calls. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_deliveries or get_deliveries_by_delivery_date_and_phone, so exclusions are missing.

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