List deliveries

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds genuinely new context: town is returned by default while full address, phone, coordinates and delivery-note links require include_contact_details, plus the underlying GET /fulfillments/ call. It doesn't discuss pagination or rate behavior, but that gap is small.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the resource enumeration comes first and the output-visibility rule follows. Every clause carries information about what is listed or returned.

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 12-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the resource scope and the sensitive-field gating rule. It omits return shape/pagination description, but the schema already handles the parameters, so the definition is sufficient.

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 all 12 parameters including their API mappings and defaults are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the include_contact_details toggle and default output shape, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema 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?

States a specific resource set (deliveries, collections, courier shipments, uplifts) with the domain synonym (fulfillments) and the endpoint used. No sibling tool covers fulfillments, so the resource is 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?

Use is implied by the listed filters (status, date, courier, order), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tool is named or excluded. Adequate but minimal.

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