delivery_restrictions__get_delivery_restrictions

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond those annotations: the MCP server throttles at 1 request per 60 seconds and the result should be cached. This is valuable operational transparency, though it does not cover response format or pagination.

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: it states the content first, then the ID source, then the throttling and caching guidance. Every clause earns its place with no redundant 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 simple read-only, single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential operational context: what is returned, how to get the required IDs, and rate-limiting behavior. The lack of an output schema and explicit sibling differentiation are minor gaps given the low complexity and present annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent where to obtain `organizationIds`, which is the key semantic gap. However, it does not explain the `request` wrapper or the expected array/UUID structure, so compensation is only partial.

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 identifies the resource precisely: a delivery restrictions reference containing zones, minimum amounts, and intervals. It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling `delivery_restrictions__get_allowed_delivery_restrictions`.

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 concrete usage context: it tells the agent where to obtain `organizationIds` (from `organizations__get_organizations`) and advises caching because of the 60-second throttle. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over the sibling `get_allowed_delivery_restrictions`, so exclusions/alternatives are missing.

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