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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the operation reads one delivery, exposes the SES MessageId, and intentionally omits recipient data, which is useful privacy-relevant context. It does not discuss error cases or permissions, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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 a single efficient sentence, front-loading the action and resource before the scoping constraint. Every word adds value with no repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 low complexity, fully described parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and explicitly excludes recipient data. It could be more complete by mentioning error/failure behavior or the relationship to delivery events, but nothing critical is missing for basic 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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (delivery_id, organization_id) at 100% coverage, so by baseline this dimension is a 3. The description adds some context by connecting the delivery to its SES MessageId, but it does not provide meaningful additional parameter-level semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('one delivery'), and further clarifies exactly what is included (SES MessageId) and excluded (recipient data). This distinguishes it from broader delivery-related tools such as commsharbor_delivery_events or commsharbor_domain_deliveries.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: fetching a single delivery by ID and getting its SES MessageId without recipient data. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' element, but the intent is unambiguous.

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