list_post_deliveries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'Show' operation and lists possible statuses, but does not disclose response shape, error behavior, whether all accounts are included, or any other behavioral details. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and includes the relevant status values. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and status vocabulary, but lacks details on the response format, potential errors, or account coverage. It is minimally complete but does not exceed the baseline.

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 fully describes the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage as 'Post id (uuid)'). The description's phrase 'for a post' merely restates the schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('per-account delivery status'), and enumerates the status types ('queued, publishing, published, failed') with the scope 'for a post.' This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts or get_post.

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 usage is implied: one would use this to check delivery status of a post. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_post) or any exclusions, so the context is clear but not fully enumerated.

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