get_delivery_times

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the day parameter defaults to today, the output values are meant to be used as delivery_time, and 'ASAP' has a specific meaning.

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 the core purpose, then the workflow detail. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the key parameter semantics and integration with ordering tools. It omits minor details such as timezone or what happens when no slots are available, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the default behavior (today), which is exactly the missing semantic information for the single 'day' parameter.

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 resource and scope: available delivery slots for a given day. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the ordering tools (review_order / place_order) that consume its output, so an agent can place it in the workflow without checking other schemas.

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 explains the primary use case: get slots for a day, then pass a slot's value as delivery_time to review_order or place_order. It also clarifies that 'ASAP' is a valid value. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but no sibling provides the same data, so the guidance is clear.

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