drafts__get_delivery_draft_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning MCP-server throttling (20 requests/60s) and advising caching, which is not present in annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding of operational constraints.

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, consisting of two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('Черновик по id') and immediately provides actionable ID sourcing and rate-limit information. Every word 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 simple getter with annotations covering safety and a clear description of ID sourcing and throttling, the description is largely complete. It does not describe the return format, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor gap. The agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 does so by explaining exactly where to obtain each parameter: orderId from deliveries_retrieve__get_deliveries_by_delivery_date_and_status and organizationId from organizations__get_organizations. This is meaningful guidance beyond the bare UUID type in the schema.

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 'Черновик по id' (draft by id), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like drafts__get_delivery_drafts_by_filter (filter-based) and deliveries_retrieve__get_delivery_by_id (delivery, not draft) by emphasizing the 'by id' retrieval. It also provides explicit guidance on where to obtain the required IDs, reinforcing its unique role.

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 context on how to source the IDs (orderId from a specific tool, organizationId from another) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the filter-based draft retrieval. It implies usage when a specific draft ID is known but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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