delivery_notes_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior (though page/limit params imply it), ordering, whether results include only non-deleted items, or that the selected company scoping might be overridden by companyId. For a read/list tool the safety profile is implied ('list' being non-destructive), but no behavioral detail about filtering semantics or response characteristics is given.

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?

Two sentences, clean and efficient. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and filter options; the second adds useful domain context about what delivery notes represent. No wasted words or redundant restatement of the schema. Structured well for quick parsing.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and filter dimensions adequately. Missing elements include pagination/defaults mention (though schema covers this), ordering behavior, and whether the company scoping can be overridden. The tool is relatively simple (list with filters), so this is adequate but not complete—no mention of return format, sorting, or how pagination interacts with filters.

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%, so all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context that delivery notes are scoped to a company and that status/date range/client/search are the filter dimensions, which maps roughly to params. However, it adds no meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters like status enum semantics, date format, or clientId meaning beyond 'Filter by client UUID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool lists delivery notes for the selected company with optional filters and explains what delivery notes document (physical delivery of goods or completion of services). It distinguishes itself from delivery_notes_get and delivery_notes_create siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The verb 'list' plus resource 'delivery notes' plus filter capabilities is specific.

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 specifies that this is a listing tool scoped to the selected company and enumerates the filter dimensions (status, date range, client, search term). It provides context for when to use it (listing delivery notes), though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it vs. the alternative delivery_notes_get (single-record retrieval) or when to prefer it. With 8 sibling delivery_notes_* tools, more explicit exclusion would strengthen this, but the listing scope is clear.

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