auspost_delivery_times

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states it 'gets' estimated delivery times, implying a read operation, but does not mention required authentication (api_key), rate limits, or potential errors. Without annotations, the description is insufficient for understanding side effects or safety.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient but sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with critical information like parameter roles or return format. While not as sparse as a single word like 'Process', it still under-specifies, earning a middle score.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the return values look like, how to format parameters, or any constraints. For a tool with this complexity, much more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. While 'from_postcode' and 'to_postcode' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'service_code' and 'api_key' are not documented. The agent has no context on valid values or format for these parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'Australia Post estimated delivery times'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like auspost_track_parcel and auspost_get_postcode, as those have different purposes. However, it could be more precise by including the scope 'between two postcodes' to avoid ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts (e.g., 'Use this for estimating delivery times before sending a parcel; for tracking an existing parcel, use auspost_track_parcel'). The agent has to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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