Run the content policy on a brief without charging or ordering. Free. Call before create_gift so a refusal surfaces early. A booklet that would wound the recipient is refused here, not at charge time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | Yes | The same brief you would pass to create_gift. It is checked against the content policy, free, with no order created. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool runs without charging or ordering, is free, and surfaces policy refusals early. It does not describe the return value or format, but the core behavior is well communicated.
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 sentences with zero wasted words: first sentence states action, second gives usage guidance, third illustrates benefit. It is front-loaded and 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?
Given the tool's complexity (validation of a nested brief object) and lack of output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose, cost, and timing. It does not elaborate on what exactly is validated under 'content policy' or the response format, but these gaps are minor for a simple validation 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 description coverage is 100% and the brief parameter's description already explains it is the same brief passed to create_gift. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('run the content policy') and identifies the resource ('brief'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling create_gift by stating it is free and does not charge or order, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly states 'Call before create_gift so a refusal surfaces early,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context strongly implies the tool is a prerequisite check for create_gift.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: gift lifecycle (create, get, cancel, list), account info, pricing, resource listings, and brief validation. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_gift, list_voices, validate_brief), making it predictable for agents.
12 tools is well-scoped for a gift ordering service, covering creation, retrieval, cancellation, pricing, account management, and resource listings without bloat.
The tool surface covers the full gift lifecycle and supporting operations (pricing, validation, account info, payment setup), with no obvious gaps for the intended domain.