api_nfd_browse_nfds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Browse NFDs with various filters' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a safe query, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of NFD objects), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with 13 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that hints at its function, though it could benefit from more detail given the complexity of the tool. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what NFDs are, the expected return format, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'offset'), or error handling. For a browse/filter tool with rich input options, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use it effectively without additional context.

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 77%, providing good documentation for most parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'various filters,' which loosely maps to parameters like name, category, and price filters. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of key parameters (e.g., what 'NFD' stands for, how filters interact, or the meaning of 'view' options), leaving the agent to rely heavily on the schema.

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 'Browse NFDs with various filters' states the verb ('browse') and resource ('NFDs'), but it's vague about what NFDs are and what browsing entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'api_nfd_search_nfds' or 'api_nfd_get_nfd', leaving the agent uncertain about when to choose this specific browsing tool over alternatives.

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. With sibling tools like 'api_nfd_search_nfds' and 'api_nfd_get_nfd' available, there's no indication of scenarios where browsing with filters is preferred over searching or fetching a specific NFD. This lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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