get_orders_by_date_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get all deliveries'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with three required parameters.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant with the schema but help readability. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining parameters and the return type. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions, data volume, or how results are structured, which are important given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 meaningful context for all three parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage: it explains that 'order_id' is for a package order, and specifies date formats and inclusivity for 'start_date' and 'end_date'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid date ranges or order_id formats.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('deliveries'), specifying the scope ('within a specific date range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_delivery_summary' or 'get_order_details', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_delivery_summary' or 'get_order_details'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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