get_order_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP GET endpoint, the return structure in detail, and the key fields. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the disclosed information is substantive and exceeds a minimal description.

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 and front-loaded, starting with the primary purpose before breaking into clearly labeled sections (用途, API, 回傳結構). Every sentence provides necessary information, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, how to get the required ID, the underlying API call, and the complete return structure. This covers all essential context an agent would need for correct 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?

The schema already provides a description for delivery_id, but the tool description adds meaning by noting the ID comes from get_order_detail's shipments/deliveries fields, reinforcing the source and providing field-level context that is not explicitly in the schema. With high schema coverage, this additional context justifies a score above baseline.

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 retrieves complete information for a single delivery order, including logistics status, tracking number, and recipient address. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing get_order_detail as the source of the delivery ID, making its specific resource and action clear.

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 '用途' section explicitly states use cases (tracking packages, confirming recipient info, customer service) and explains that the delivery ID typically comes from get_order_detail's shipments/deliveries fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied get_order_detail, 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.