get_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a 'full delivery schedule' but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first, followed by concise sections for arguments and returns. There is no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' block.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but misses behavioral details (e.g., authentication, errors) and output specifics (e.g., format of 'Formatted schedule'), which are crucial for a tool with no structured support.

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 the single parameter 'order_id', explaining it as 'The ID of the package order', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is effective, though it could be more detailed (e.g., format or source of the ID).

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 ('full delivery schedule for an order'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_delivery_summary' or 'get_order_details', which might provide overlapping or related information, leaving some ambiguity about 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'get_delivery_summary' and 'get_order_details', there is no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it should be preferred, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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