Get inbox delivery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description complements these by explaining the 'retained' nature of the delivery state and the optional address behavior. It adds context about what the state represents (pulled, acknowledged, rejected) without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read retained delivery state by ID') and then adds the optional address nuance. Every word contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, annotations, and an output schema), the description fully covers the key context: what it reads, how the optional address works, and the intended use case. The output schema handles return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'address' and 'deliveryId'. The description adds a brief purpose for the address parameter ('so the sender can see...'), but this largely mirrors schema text. Since the schema already explains parameter semantics thoroughly, the description adds marginal value, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Read retained delivery state by ID') and the specific resource ('delivery state'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_inbox or get_status. It also explains the optional address parameter's role, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: it is for reading a specific delivery's retained state, particularly so the sender can check pulled, acknowledged, or rejected status by passing the recipient's address. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the use case is well implied and distinct from list_inbox (which lists deliveries) or get_status (which likely reports overall store status).

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