dp_commercial_get_connection_requirementsExplain authentication modes, scopes, human prerequisites, review state and known limitations for one DigitalPublic connector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connectorKey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| error | Yes | ||
| links | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| nextAction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It usefully adds that the response covers authentication modes, scopes, human prerequisites, review state, and known limitations, but it does not disclose error behavior or any connector-specific constraints.
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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and the main content categories, making it easy for an agent to quickly infer the tool's scope.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema are present, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and scope well, though explicit connectorKey guidance and usage exclusions would make it fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone connectorKey parameter. It partially does by saying 'for one DigitalPublic connector', which implies connectorKey selects that connector, but it does not explain connectorKey format, provenance, or accepted values in detail.
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 names a specific verb ('Explain') and a precise resource: authentication modes, scopes, human prerequisites, review state, and known limitations for one DigitalPublic connector. These content areas distinguish it from sibling tools like get_install_options or get_onboarding_guide without needing to open their schemas.
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 the tool should be used when a caller needs connection requirements for a particular connector, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have a clear, distinct target, and overlapping trial/checkout/status tools are cross-referenced in their descriptions. A few pairs such as get_checkout_readiness versus get_checkout_status and legacy claim_credentials versus start_sandbox could still be misselected, but the descriptions generally resolve the boundaries.
All 28 tools share the dp_commercial_ prefix and follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern such as get_, list_, start_, compare_, and request_. There is no mixing of camelCase, inconsistent verbs, or unpredictable naming.
At 28 tools, the server is above the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy even for a broad commercial platform. Several informational tools, such as checkout readiness versus checkout status and service status versus uptime history, could be consolidated without losing core capability.
The toolset covers the core commercial lifecycle well: discover needs, compare plans, assess fit, start trial/checkout, request proposals, check status, and review security/compliance profiles. Minor gaps exist around post-checkout subscription management or cancellation, but the described handoff to the DigitalPublic product covers most dead ends.