delivery_notes_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not confirmed), whether it requires permissions, or what fields of enrichment it returns vs the list version. However, the description does disclose the scope of returned content (line items, client, deputy, totals), which adds some value over the schema.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently enumerates the return scope. No wasted words, though it could arguably add a usage-context note. Appropriate length for this tool.

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 straightforward get-by-id tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, this is adequate. However, no annotations exist and there's no behavioral disclosure about permissions or return format. Given sibling context (there's a delivery_notes_get vs list and many get tools), a note on return richness vs list could help. But for the tool's simplicity, this is minimally sufficient.

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 100%, with both parameters (uuid, companyId) documented in the schema. The description adds the enrichment context (what data comes back), which builds on the uuid parameter's meaning. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add syntax or format details beyond schema.

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+resource ('Get complete details for a specific delivery note') and enumerates what's included (line items, client info, deputy details, calculated totals). It distinguishes from the sibling 'delivery_notes_list' by being the 'get by uuid/details' variant, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 as a detail-retrieval operation for a specific delivery note but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like delivery_notes_list or get for other document types (invoices_get, receipts_get). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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