get_delivery_option_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying API endpoint (GET /v1/delivery_options/{delivery_option_id}), which indicates a read-only operation, and details the return structure with a list of fields. However, it does not explicitly mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or confirm there are no side effects, though the GET method inherently implies safety.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, API call, and return structure. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter detail-fetch tool without an output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool does, the API endpoint, and the return fields. It even notes consistency with list_delivery_options. However, it could briefly mention error handling or permissions, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its type and description (delivery_option_id obtained from list_delivery_options). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond confirming the parameter's place in the API endpoint, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: to retrieve detailed information for a specified delivery option (取得指定配送方式的詳細資訊). It also elaborates that it queries complete settings including rate rules, regional restrictions, weight limits, etc., and distinguishes itself from list_delivery_options by emphasizing '單一' (single) delivery method.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: '適合確認特定配送方式的詳細條件' (suitable for confirming detailed conditions of a specific delivery method). It implies differentiation from list_delivery_options, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name, so it falls short of a 5.

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