get_delivery_status

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

The description simply repeats the endpoint and does not disclose behavior beyond what annotations already state. It lacks details about the response format, error handling, or any prerequisites, and offers no additional context about the operation's nature.

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 short phrase and therefore concisely front-loads the core action. However, it is so brief that it omits essential explanatory content, yet this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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?

With no output schema and three parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the endpoint returns, how message_id and x_track_id relate, or how to choose between this and similar sibling tools, making it hard for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight emphasis on 'x_track_id' as the key filtering parameter, but dry_run and message_id are not elaborated beyond their schema descriptions.

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 the specific HTTP verb and resource ('GET /api/v2/issue/status') and mentions the key parameter 'x_track_id', which aligns with the tool name 'get_delivery_status'. However, it is a terse endpoint reference rather than a full sentence, and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_package_status' or 'get_ext_status'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context on what distinguishes this status retrieval from other status-related sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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