auspost_delivery_times

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It says 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements (though an 'api_key' parameter exists), rate limits, or what happens on errors. The lack of detail on behavioral traits is significant.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter formats, or any special considerations needed 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to the parameters (e.g., what 'from_postcode' and 'to_postcode' expect, what 'service_code' options are). The agent must guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Australia Post estimated delivery times.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'estimated delivery times' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling names (e.g., 'auspost_get_postcode', 'auspost_track_parcel') imply distinct functions, so purpose is reasonably clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auspost_track_parcel' or 'auspost_get_postcode'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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