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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('accept') which implies a mutation, but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., what happens after acceptance), permission requirements, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 that states the core action and the optional feature. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after acceptance, what the response contains, error scenarios, or how this differs from sibling tools. The context signals indicate complexity that isn't addressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional tip, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('accept') and resource ('delivery quote'), and mentions the optional tip functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_delivery_quote' or 'update_delivery', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_delivery' or 'update_delivery'. It mentions optional tipping but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., must have a pending quote) or timing considerations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Cancel' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur (e.g., refunds, notifications). It lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words or structural issues are present.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon cancellation (e.g., status changes, notifications) or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'external_delivery_id' documented as 'The delivery ID to cancel'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 action ('cancel') and target resource ('an existing delivery'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'update_delivery' or 'get_delivery', but the verb 'cancel' is specific enough to convey a distinct operation. No tautology or misleading elements are present.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_delivery' or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., delivery must be in a cancellable state). It implies usage for existing deliveries but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new delivery request' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function and doesn't bury important information in unnecessary verbiage.

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 creation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the expected response looks like, error conditions, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools. The agent would be left guessing about important behavioral aspects despite the comprehensive parameter schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 10 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('delivery request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_delivery_quote', which appears to be a related creation operation. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_delivery_quote' or 'accept_delivery_quote'. There's no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between these similar delivery-related creation tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states it 'gets a quote,' implying a read-only operation. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what the quote includes (e.g., cost, ETA), which is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple function, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the quote returns, how it's used with siblings, or behavioral aspects like error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's for delivery requests, which is minimal value. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('quote for a delivery request'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'create_delivery' or 'accept_delivery_quote', which might handle related but different operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a delivery request ready, or differentiate from siblings like 'accept_delivery_quote' for post-quote actions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the status response includes (e.g., format, possible values). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external systems.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status return includes (e.g., success/failure, timestamps, location), which is crucial for a delivery tracking tool. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'external_delivery_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameter is required for retrieval, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of an existing delivery'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_delivery' or 'update_delivery' beyond implying it's for retrieval rather than mutation, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing delivery ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_delivery_quote' or 'cancel_delivery', leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates delivery details, implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical information: whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), error handling, or rate limits. The description is too vague for a mutation tool with 18 parameters.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameter categories (e.g., 'Update delivery details including addresses, contact info, timing, and payment parameters').

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 complexity (18 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior (e.g., partial updates allowed?), permissions needed, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a tool with many parameters and no structured output, more context is required to guide effective use.

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 description mentions 'addresses, times, or other parameters', which loosely maps to some input schema fields (e.g., pickup/dropoff addresses, pickup/dropoff times). However, with 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('delivery details'), specifying the types of details that can be modified (addresses, times, or other parameters). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_delivery' or 'cancel_delivery' by focusing on updates, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlap with other update-related tools that might exist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a delivery must exist), conditions for use (e.g., only before delivery starts), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_delivery' or 'get_delivery'. Usage is implied by the verb 'update', but explicit context is missing.

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