giftroam

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the return payload (earliest/latest estimate, warnings for PO box/hotel/holiday window, suggested action), which tells the agent how to act on the result.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core question is front-loaded ahead of the return-value summary. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't detail return values, yet it still summarizes them usefully; annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameter detail. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this read-only check 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented — including the locale caveat that it affects language only. The description restates country/city/date/gift but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. Locale is not mentioned at all in the prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (check delivery feasibility) and enumerates the narrowing dimensions — country, city, date, gift — so the scope is unambiguous. None of the siblings (create_checkout, get_order_status, search_gifts, etc.) overlap this function, so no explicit sibling differentiation is needed.

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 framing question establishes when to reach for this tool (before promising a delivery) and the optional qualifiers show which context improves the answer. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the link is signed, single-purpose, and expires in 30 minutes; recipient fields are deliberately absent; and the response includes an order summary. Annotations already cover idempotency and read/write hints, but the description usefully clarifies the expiry and security model.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints; every sentence carries distinct information (scope, omission rationale, return value, idempotency) with no repetition.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps (expiry, no-recipient design, return shape, retry semantics). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that recipient/address/payment fields are intentionally omitted and collected on the secure page, which prevents an agent from inventing or expecting those parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (signed, single-purpose checkout link) with clear scope: one gift to one country, 30-minute expiry. This distinguishes it cleanly from read-oriented siblings like search_gifts and get_gift_details.

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?

Explains the retry contract (same idempotency_key returns the same link) and implicitly routes the agent to gather recipient/payment data on the hosted page rather than via parameters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral nuance — the delivery window is 'EST cutoff-aware' — which is not derivable from annotations, but otherwise it discloses nothing beyond the return payload.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the resource. It spends its whole budget on output inventory that the output schema already supplies, which is a mild structural misallocation rather than verbosity.

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?

With an output schema present, enumerating return fields was not strictly necessary, and the description omits the one thing an agent actually needs — when this lookup is the right call versus search_gifts. Annotations plus schema cover safety and parameters, so the gap is narrow but real.

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%, so all three parameters (gift_id, country, locale) are fully documented in the schema, including locale's display-only effect. The description adds only 'one destination country'; baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieve details for 'one gift in one destination country', and enumerates the payload (description, contents, images, price, delivery window, substitution policy). The scope contrasts implicitly with search_gifts, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 is entirely a return-value inventory; it says nothing about when to call this versus search_gifts or check_delivery, nor that gift_id must come from a prior search. Only the schema's gift_id description hints at provenance, so usage is effectively unguided.

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 and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the token is the sole credential, and the response deliberately excludes address, phone and payment details — useful disclosure for an agent handling buyer data.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before moving to lookup mechanics and privacy guarantees. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and it correctly focuses on auth and privacy instead. The remaining gap is routing: nothing here disambiguates this tool from check_delivery or list_my_orders for an agent choosing among five siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces that order_token is a credential issued after payment, but adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema's own descriptions provide (including for locale).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('status, ETA window and next action for an order') and even scopes the audience as customer-facing, which is more than a bare restatement of the title. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like check_delivery or list_my_orders, which an agent may plausibly confuse with this lookup.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use: the order is looked up by the buyer's private order token, which is 'issued after payment' and is 'the only credential'. That tells an agent when the tool is callable. It stops short of the 5, since it names no alternative (e.g. check_delivery, list_my_orders) or exclusion condition.

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 cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety. Beyond that, the description discloses the required OAuth scope, the specific failure mode for guest connections (auth_required), and a privacy guarantee that addresses, phone numbers and payment details are never returned — useful behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences: field inventory first, auth requirement second, privacy boundary third. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant information (requires auth) is front-loaded after the payload summary.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and the description still covers auth, error behavior and privacy. The only shortfall is the absence of any hint about result volume or the limit parameter's effect on paging through a user's orders.

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%: locale is fully documented in the schema, limit is not. The description does not mention limit (default 20, max 50) or locale at all, but the limit bounds are largely self-describing and the locale semantics are already in the schema, leaving only a modest gap.

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?

States a specific resource (the signed-in user's GiftRoam orders) and enumerates what each record carries: status, ETA window, gift, destination, tracking token. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling get_order_status, which an agent could confuse for a single-order variant of the same data.

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 clear precondition (authenticated OAuth connection with orders:read) and a negative case (guest connection returns auth_required), which is genuine routing guidance. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over get_order_status or check_delivery, so the agent must infer the multi-order scope itself.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context: results include final customer prices with delivery and delivery days, and pagination uses a cursor. It does not cover auth or rate limits, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and relevant filters, then return shape, then pagination. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a rich input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description need not explain return fields in depth; it still summarizes the shortlist and pagination. It covers the essential behavior for this search tool, so it is complete enough.

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 89%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description restates budget in minor units and the needed-by date but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Find gifts') and scopes it to a destination country, with optional filter categories. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_gift_details or check_delivery, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It tells the agent that filters are optional and what dimensions can be filtered, implying the tool is for browsing/searching. It offers no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as check_delivery or get_gift_details, and no exclusions, so it remains at the implied-usage level.

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