deliveries_retrieve__search_deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds a behavioral constraint beyond that: no more than 10 MCP-server requests per 60 seconds and advice to cache results. This is useful and does not contradict the 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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then provide ID-sourcing and rate-limit guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 search tool with one nested request object, the description covers the main purpose, parameter sources, and operational constraints. It does not describe the response shape, but the tool name and read-only annotations imply a list of deliveries, and the nested schema provides the remaining filter semantics.

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 description adds provenance for three key parameters (orderIds, organizationIds, terminalGroupIds) and names filter categories, which is helpful. However, the single top-level request parameter has no description in the schema per the coverage signal, and the description does not explain the request object structure or remaining fields such as deliveryDateFrom/To, rowsCount, or sourceKeys; the nested schema carries most of the semantic load.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('orders/deliveries') and names the key filters (text, statuses, problem, sorting). It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools such as get_deliveries_by_delivery_date_and_status, so an agent must infer the differentiation from the mention of text search.

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 actionable context: it tells where to get orderIds, organizationIds, and terminalGroupIds from sibling tools, and warns about the MCP-server throttle plus caching guidance. It does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the provided context is concrete enough to guide invocation.

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