cpu_list_my_transports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral traits beyond the name: it lists only 'the ones you paid for' (ownership scope) and specifies output fields ('source/target, amount, arrival time, and whether it is delivered or ready to finalize'). It does not mention pagination/ordering, but for a simple list tool it is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three tightly-written sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The first sentence states the purpose and filter options, the second describes the output, the third gives usage guidance. No fluff or 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers what the tool lists, the filtering options, the output content, and the primary use case (completing deliveries via cpu_finalize_delivery). No critical context is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the filter parameter already has a description and enum in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining the filter values in context ('in_transit', 'delivered', 'ready_to_finalize') and the purpose of the filter, reinforcing the parameter's role in the delivery lifecycle beyond the schema's bare enum.

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 action: 'List your deliveries (the ones you paid for)' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cpu_transport (which likely creates transports) and cpu_get_transport_status (which likely gets a single transport status) by explicitly scoping to the user's paid deliveries and including filtering options.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use it to find deliveries to complete with `cpu_finalize_delivery`.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and names the follow-up sibling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative listing/status tools like cpu_get_transport_status, so it lacks exclusions.

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