run_delivery_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses runtime (25-30s, with Word ≈28s), a recommended client timeout, failure isolation ('single item failure does not interrupt; returns files success list and errors detail'), output delivery via 72h short links, quick-mode default and cost, and the condition for Word report generation. This is rich operational detail beyond schema.

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 dense and front-loaded: pipeline purpose, outputs, timing, failure behavior, prerequisite, and optional Word conditions are all packed into a few sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds actionable information for an agent.

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 complex multi-step pipeline with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description covers the essential ground: artifacts produced, timing, timeout advice, error handling, prerequisite call, and the conditions that trigger the optional Word report. An agent has enough to invoke 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides overall pipeline semantics but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema descriptions already state (quick mode, report structure, file_name condition, report_type default).

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 a one-click delivery pipeline that converts 5 types of input txt into Excel (12 tables), a financial dashboard, sensitivity analysis, and an optional Word report. It names the exact artifact set and recommends itself for external agents, which distinguishes it from the single-purpose sibling tools like fast_calc_excel or generate_dashboard.

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?

It gives explicit usage context ('recommended for external agents') and a hard prerequisite ('need to call get_protocol_instructions first'), plus timeout guidance (≥60s). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context for invocation is clear.

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