giftroam

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds operational context by specifying return types (earliest/latest estimate) and warning categories (PO box, hotel, holiday window) with a suggested action, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose and expected output, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description need not explain return structures in detail. It covers the main use case, key output types, and common warnings. It could be slightly more explicit about negative results (e.g., infeasible delivery), but overall it is adequate.

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 each parameter thoroughly documented (e.g., city for warnings only, locale localizes messages). The tool description only paraphrases these (e.g., 'by a date' for date_needed) without adding new semantic depth, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 explicitly states the tool checks delivery feasibility to a country with optional city, date, and gift, returning estimates and warnings. This is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_gifts' or 'get_order_status'.

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 phrase 'Use it whenever the user has a deadline' provides clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the deadline trigger is a strong discriminator.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the link is time-limited, single-purpose, scoped to one gift and one country, and intentionally collects recipient and payment details on the secure page. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user before sharing, which is important safety-relevant behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the defining purpose appears first, followed by the most decision-relevant constraints and safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with a complete output schema and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers what the link is, how it behaves, how to safely use it in conversation, and how to retry correctly. No essential operational context is missing.

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 all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining why recipient fields are absent, clarifying the meaning of the idempotency_key behavior when retrying, and framing the gift_id/country scope.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creates a signed, single-purpose checkout link for one gift to one country, with a 30-minute expiry. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all read/query tools.

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 gives clear operational guidance: show the returned summary and get explicit user confirmation before sharing the link, and reuse the idempotency_key on retries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are obviously different in function, so the context is clear enough.

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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by enumerating what is returned, including image details, customer price, delivery EST window, and substitution policy, which helps the agent anticipate output behavior beyond the 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?

A single, front-loaded, compact sentence covers the full scope of the tool. It is a bit long and packed with items, but every element adds informational value and there is no 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?

The presence of an output schema covers return details, while the description supplements with key behavioral constraints such as country-dependent pricing and EST cutoff-aware delivery. Combined with clear parameter prerequisites, this is complete enough for a read-only lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% with high-quality descriptions for gift_id, country, and color. The tool description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond that; it merely contextualizes country as the anchor for pricing and delivery.

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 ('详情内容、图片、价格、预计配送、替换政策、限制') and resource (“单一礼物，一个目的地”), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_gifts, check_delivery, and get_order_status.

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 usage: it is for looking up detailed of a single gift for a single destination country. However it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that search_gifts or check_delivery should be used for discovery or delivery verification.

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?

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the important behavioral boundaries: the token is a credential that must never be guessed or enumerated, and the response deliberately omits address, phone, and payment details. This is high-value behavioral context that structured annotations alone do not provide.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the required credential, and the privacy guarantee. There is no repetition of annotation values, no fluff, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, this description is largely sufficient for selecting and calling the tool. It explains the input, the credential requirement, and the output boundary. A short pointer to sibling-tool alternatives would make it even more complete, but the absence does not leave a major operational gap.

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 documents both order_token and locale with full descriptions. The description adds meaningful context around the token being a credentialed order-token handed to the buyer, but it does not substantially enrich locale semantics or other parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 gets a customer-facing order status, ETA window, and next action, tied to the buyer's order token. It is much more specific than a tautology and conveys what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like check_delivery, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a hard prerequisite: the buyer's order token is required and must not be guessed. That helps an agent know when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly explain when this tool should be chosen over list_my_orders, check_delivery, or get_gift_details, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavior: it specifies the OAuth scope requirement, the auth_required error on guest connections, and explicitly states that addresses, phone numbers, and payment details are never returned. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by auth requirements and exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information—no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return types. It covers the core purpose, auth prerequisites, and data exclusions, which suffices for a read-only list operation. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but the limit parameter implies pagination support. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 50% (only locale has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on either parameter. The schema itself provides constraints for limit (min/max/default) and a clear description for locale. Since coverage is not low enough to demand heavy compensation and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the signed-in user's GiftRoam orders and enumerates the returned fields (status, ETA, gift, destination, order token). This verb+resource is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order_status, which likely targets a single order.

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 clear usage context: it requires an authenticated GiftRoam connection with OAuth scope orders:read, and explicitly states that a guest connection yields auth_required. It does not, however, mention when to prefer this over get_order_status, though the listing scope is implied. No exclusions are stated, but the prerequisites are clear enough.

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 already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds practical behavior beyond that: 'Returns a shortlist with final customer prices (delivery included) and delivery days,' 'Paginate with cursor,' and the operational requirement to ask for the country first. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filters and output, then a clear operational note. Every sentence adds necessary context and the most important constraint (country required, ask for it first) is last but emphasized.

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 output schema and strong parameter schema, the description covers the essential workflow: required country, filters, return values, pagination, and customer-facing context. It doesn't detail every parameter, potential errors, or fallback behavior, but those are largely covered by the schemas and its scope is appropriate.

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 coverage is 89%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra semantics by summarizing filter categories (free text, occasion, budget, needed-by date, country) and clarifying prices are in minor units via the schema. It doesn't deeply supplement the schema, but it doesn't need to given 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 tool's action ('Find gifts that can be delivered to a destination country') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning exactly what it returns: a shortlist with customer prices, delivery included, and delivery days. This makes it distinct from check_delivery, get_gift_details, and the order-related tools.

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 gives clear context: it applies when searching for deliverable gifts, with optional filters and pagination, and explicitly instructs that country is required and should be asked for first. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the sibling set and output make the primary intent obvious.

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