deliveries_retrieve__get_deliveries_by_revision

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the 3-hour revision window, MCP-server throttling at 10 requests per 60 seconds, and a caching recommendation for the dialogue. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and window first, then ID sourcing, then rate-limit/caching guidance. Every sentence adds operational value, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name beyond the minimal necessary context.

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 covers the core purpose, the window, the source of organization IDs, and throttling behavior, which is good for a read-only polling tool. However, it does not explain startRevision semantics, sourceKeys, or the response shape, and with no output schema the agent must infer these details from the parameter names alone.

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?

Given the reported 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden for explaining parameters, but it only addresses organizationIds by pointing to organizations__get_organizations. The critical startRevision parameter and the optional sourceKeys parameter are not meaningfully explained beyond the generic phrase 'from revision'; an agent is left without enough detail to construct a fully correct request.

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's function: retrieving orders changed since a revision, with a 3-hour window and incremental polling. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling delivery tools by the revision-based mechanism, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from date-, phone-, status-, or ID-based retrieval 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 phrase 'incremental polling' and the 3-hour window imply when this tool should be used, and the pointer to organizations__get_organizations for organizationIds is helpful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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