snapshots_get_latest_snapshot_push

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing an authentication requirement (agency-level token vs location PIT), which is a behavioral trait not present in the structured metadata. It does not describe the response format, but with annotations handling the safety aspects, the added context is meaningful.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get Last Snapshot Push') and follows with the key authentication constraint. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read operation with annotations covering safety and a schema that documents the optional locationId, the description adds the essential auth requirement. However, it omits any explanation of what a 'snapshot push' is, how the parameters relate to the operation, or what the return value contains (no output schema exists). The lack of differentiation from the sibling snapshots_get_snapshot_push also leaves ambiguity, making it only marginally sufficient.

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 only 33% – only locationId has a description in the schema. The tool description provides no information about snapshotId or companyId, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The agent is left without guidance on how to fill these parameters beyond their names and types, which is insufficient for a tool with two required 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 states the verb 'Get' and object 'Last Snapshot Push', making the purpose unambiguous. It also adds a specific constraint about the required token type, which helps distinguish it from similar read operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool snapshots_get_snapshot_push, relying on the word 'Last' to imply the differentiation.

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 a clear usage condition: 'requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT', telling the agent when this tool is appropriate in terms of authentication context. It does not mention any alternative tools or explicitly state when NOT to use it, so the guidance is limited to a prerequisite rather than a comparison with siblings.

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