The product run summary for this growth engine: product_url, tier, trial_ends_at, timezone, whether autonomous work is active, and delivery settings. Credits once metering is live. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces these with 'Read-only'. It goes beyond annotations by listing the concrete return fields and adding the credit-metering note, which gives the agent a clearer picture of 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: one sentence with a clear list of returned fields, followed by two short fragments about credits and read-only/free. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important information 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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, that it is a read-only operation, and a note about future metering. It could be more explicit about what 'product run summary' means or when to use this tool, but for a simple getter it is largely 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description lists output fields instead, which is useful context in lieu of an output schema, though it doesn't directly address 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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as returning a product run summary with a specific set of fields (product_url, tier, trial_ends_at, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling getters. However, the term 'product run summary' is not immediately obviously synonymous with 'enrollment', so it could be more explicit.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states properties like 'Read-only, free' and lists output fields, but does not mention any context where this tool should be preferred or avoided.
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 follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.