List Delivered Orders

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by specifying that results are limited to carrier-confirmed deliveries, describing the returned Order objects, and noting a 401 error for invalid API keys. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into clear 'When to use,' 'Parameters,' 'Returns,' and 'Errors' sections. Every section contributes useful information, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters, full schema description coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter notes, return contents, and an error case, leaving no significant gap for an agent to call it 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 schema already fully documents order_ref and response_format, and the description largely repeats those definitions. It adds only marginal meaning by noting that order_ref is useful for looking up a specific customer's deliveries, which is helpful but not substantial enough to exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List delivered orders from StarShipIt,' and narrows the scope to orders where the carrier has confirmed delivery. That scope distinguishes it from sibling status-list tools such as starshipit_list_shipped_orders and starshipit_list_unshipped_orders without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 'When to use' section gives clear contexts: post-delivery reporting, customer-service lookups, and reconciliation workflows. It does not name alternatives such as starshipit_search_orders or starshipit_list_shipped_orders, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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