get_maker_groups

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the trait that data is 'cleaned' and returned in 'TOON format', which provides some insight into transformation and output structure. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, filtering effects, and whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. With no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but misses key behavioral info.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no superfluous content. The action and key additional information (cleaned, TOON format) are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 output schema and six parameters involving pagination and filtering, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the return structure thoroughly (e.g., the format of TOON, how pagination works with 'after' and 'first' parameters, or how filtering by userId interacts with ordering). The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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%, meaning the input schema already documents all 6 parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 action ('Get maker groups') and the resource, and adds specificity with 'Returns cleaned data in TOON format'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_maker_group' (singular), leaving ambiguity about when to use the plural vs singular variant.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_maker_group for a single group). The description offers no usage context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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