List Parcel Deliveries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('complete... list'), the included fields ('status, expected dates, and every cached carrier event'), and the underlying endpoint. It does not contradict annotations, and the extra details about data richness provide meaningful transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value: the completeness, the included data types, and the endpoint coverage. It is appropriately sized for a tool with only two simple parameters.

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 has 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description explains what the tool returns (delivery list with status, dates, events) but does not clarify the output format (markdown vs json), default behavior of filter_mode, or any pagination/ordering. Given the simplicity, a moderate score is warranted—it covers the basics but leaves some usage-relevant gaps.

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 50%: 'filter_mode' has a description, but 'response_format' lacks one. The tool description does not compensate for this gap; it mentions 'recent or active' which aligns with filter_mode but does not explain how to set it or introduce the response_format parameter. With the schema leaving one parameter undocumented and the description providing no parameter-level detail, the semantics are weak.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('Parcel's complete recent or active delivery list'), and the content ('status, expected dates, and every cached carrier event'). It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like 'parcel_get_delivery' which targets a single delivery, and 'parcel_list_carriers' which lists carriers. The endpoint reference 'GET /external/deliveries/' reinforces the purpose.

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 usage via 'recent or active delivery list' and 'complete' but does not explicitly state when to choose this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions like filtering or pagination. Unlike an ideal case with explicit alternative references, the guidance here is only implicit, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from the name and context.

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