Delegation History

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it requires a wallet signature identity and returns results newest first, which are behavioral traits not in structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and field list, then supplementary facts. No waste; every clause adds useful information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return details needn't be explained, but the description nonetheless lists key fields. Auth requirement is stated. For a filterable list tool with 5 params, it provides adequate context, though deeper filter explanations would help.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It names the delegate type enum (AUTO, MANUAL, EXTEND, FAST) but does not explain timeFilterBy (All/D7/D30) or filterByResourceType (ENERGY/BANDWIDTH), though the enum values are largely self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('delegations'), scope ('logged-in seller's'), and enumerates returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_extendable_delegates by the 'history' framing and field list, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by stating it lists the seller's delegation history, but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool guidance. With many similar list siblings (e.g., list_extendable_delegates, internal_order_history), this leaves room for confusion.

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