list_deliveries

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), yet the description adds genuine context beyond them: it discloses that due scheduled work only fires via dispatch_due_deliveries and that the cloud backend holds no credential. That prevents a real misconception about side effects. It still says nothing about pagination or result size.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the board returns, and the parenthetical caveat is short and earns its place by clarifying that this call triggers nothing. The metaphor adds flavor rather than information, but the text is not 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?

For a read-only, single-optional-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the conceptual return contents and one important behavioral caveat. Gaps remain around the unexplained limit/pagination semantics, but the absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by describing what is shown.

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?

There is one parameter, 'limit', with 0% schema description coverage and a default of 25, and the description never mentions it or any result-count behavior. With coverage this low the description is expected to compensate, and it does not, so an agent gets no bounds information beyond the schema 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 names the specific resource set it returns: reported deliveries, fees, and the scheduled queue, which is enough for an agent to tell it apart from dispatch/schedule siblings. It never uses the verb 'list', relying instead on the metaphor 'operations board', which costs a little directness but the enumerated contents compensate.

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 implicitly defines usage by contrast with dispatch_due_deliveries for firing due work, which is a useful when-not signal. However it gives no guidance against the many other read-ish siblings (track_delivery, get_delivery_quote, get_dispatch_settings), so the agent must infer which read tool to pick.

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