Generate Greetings

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals persistence behavior (30-day link, name rendered only in this response), cost/watermark, and an explicit non-behavior ('Does not post to social networks'). This is substantial context that the structured annotations do not carry, and there is no contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the core purpose and then add only consequential caveats; every sentence carries information. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys output format, name privacy, link lifetime, watermark, and what it does not do. It is not fully complete because it omits usage-selection guidance relative to sibling tools and leaves some parameter semantics to schema/enums.

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 documents name, locale, background, and previousCodes, so the description only adds a general sense that background is occasion-matched and that decorations are optional. It does not explain style/format or decoration values, leaving 50% schema coverage only partially compensated.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Create a downloadable PNG greeting' with occasion-matched background, curated phrases and optional decorations. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts the sibling tools generate_greeting or list_greeting_options, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and neither sibling tool is referenced as an alternative. The behavioral caveats (link expiry, watermark, no social posting) are useful but do not help an agent decide between this tool and generate_greeting or list_greeting_options.

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?

Annotations provide no meaningful safety signal (readOnlyHint is false), so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not send or publish anything, that first names stay transient, and that output comes from curated collections. It does not mention randomness or whether previousCodes affect results, but the essential side-effect and privacy behavior is covered.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: purpose first, then output source, then side-effect and privacy guarantees. Every sentence contributes, and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-required-parameter text-generation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key operational context: what it returns, where the content comes from, and that it has no external publishing side effects. It could be more complete by naming list_greeting_options or describing the return shape, but the schema already points to list_greeting_options for locale support.

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 75%, so most parameter meaning already lives in the schema. The description only lightly reinforces the role of 'occasion' and 'first name' and adds no new detail about how parameters interact. This meets the baseline but adds little beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Generate a short, coherent, family-friendly greeting for an occasion.' It also clarifies the output nature ('complete phrases from curated language collections') and states what the tool does not do ('Does not send or publish anything'), which distinguishes it from the card-creation sibling.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need greeting text for an occasion. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer generate_greeting over create_greeting_card or list_greeting_options, so the agent must infer routing rather than being guided.

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?

The description says 'List' and 'No personal data required', strongly implying a read-only, privacy-safe operation. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which contradicts the inherently read-only nature of listing options. This is an annotation contradiction that undermines 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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb, an enumerated resource list, and a useful privacy note. There is no filler 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool lists and the fact that no personal data is required. An agent can invoke it without additional clarification, aside from the separate annotation contradiction issue.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema is already complete. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; this matches the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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 the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resources: greeting languages, occasions, styles, image formats, and background categories. This clearly differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like create_greeting_card and generate_greeting.

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 is for exploring available options before creating or generating greetings, and the phrase 'No personal data required' adds useful context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over its siblings or when not to use it, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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