boond_deliveries_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') and does not mention error behavior, response shape, required permissions, or any notable side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 five words and immediately states the operation and target resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

For a one-parameter getter, the combination of description and schema is minimally sufficient to make the call. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what a successful response contains or what happens when the ID does not exist, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with a 'Delivery ID' description, and the description reinforces that the ID is the lookup key. Because schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much; it adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 is 'Get a delivery by ID', which clearly identifies the verb (get), the resource (delivery), and the lookup key (ID). This naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_deliveries_search, which retrieves collections rather than a single delivery.

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 implies the tool should be used when a caller has a specific delivery ID and wants that single record, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the search alternative. The usage context is inferable from the phrasing, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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