get_delivery_option_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation via the API method (GET) and describes the return structure (a dict with fields like id, name, etc.). It does not mention side effects or contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (用途, API, 回傳結構) and provides all necessary information in a concise, front-loaded manner without superfluous content.

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?

While the description includes the API endpoint and return fields, it lacks parameter details and does not fully compensate for the missing output schema. Given the tool's simplicity, it is marginally adequate but has gaps.

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 single parameter delivery_option_id has no description in the input schema (schema_description_coverage = 0%). The tool description does not explain its purpose, format, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the name.

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 verb (取得) and resource (指定配送方式的詳細資訊), distinguishing it from sibling list_delivery_options. It specifies that it retrieves detailed settings for a single delivery method.

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 '用途' section explains when to use this tool: to query a single delivery method's complete settings and confirm specific conditions. It mentions the API endpoint but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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