get_delivery_operation

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that outcomes can be 'uncertain', which tells the agent not to treat this as a binary success check. However, it says nothing about polling cadence, staleness, or how long results remain queryable.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the outcome enum. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained. But for a two-required-param lookup tool with zero schema descriptions, the description omits the critical provenance of operationId and any guidance on repeated polling, leaving the agent under-equipped to actually invoke it.

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% for two required parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never explains what operationId is or where it comes from (presumably the response of a send/forward call). The only hint of meaning is the word 'send or forward' implying the operation type. This is a real gap for a lookup tool that requires an opaque 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?

States a specific verb ('check') and resource (send/forward delivery operation) with the three possible outcome states, which is clearer than the bare tool name. It is distinguishable from the similarly-named sibling get_status, though it does not explicitly say how it differs.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_status or the send/forward tools, and no mention that it is typically used after preview_send/send_email/forward_email to confirm delivery. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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