Delivery Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that a throwaway anonymous basket is created, that real baskets are untouched, and that nothing is ordered or reserved — the critical side-effect profile for a tool that touches a basket-like resource. It stops short of stating whether this is safe to call repeatedly, any rate limits, or how 'short-lived' the session is.

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 rhetorical opener is front-loaded and the second sentence delivers the key safety disclosure immediately, so the important points come first. The prose is slightly chatty but each sentence carries either scope or behavior, so it earns most of its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the behavioral side effects are covered. The gap is parameter documentation: an agent knows what the tool returns but not what to pass for sku/market/quantity, leaving it under-specified for invocation.

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 0% across three parameters (sku, market, quantity), so the description must compensate and does not: none of the three are explained, nor is the sku format or whether market defaults to a stored market (set_market exists as a sibling). The only indirect hint is that quantity affects the free-shipping threshold, which is not made explicit.

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 states a specific comparison output ('costs, lead times and stock for both, side by side') for the pickup-vs-delivery decision, which is more precise than the bare name 'delivery_info'. It does not, however, name or exclude the nearby siblings that look like they could overlap (plan_pickup, compare_markets, market_info), so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage context is implied by the opening question ('Pick up or have it delivered?'), so the agent can infer this is for a delivery-vs-pickup cost decision. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative sibling such as plan_pickup, which leaves the selection ambiguous.

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