ac_GetTermsToken

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the terms token status,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The empty permissions list adds confusion rather than transparency, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes redundant sections like the empty permissions list and parameter details that duplicate the schema. While not overly verbose, it wastes space on uninformative content, reducing efficiency. A more streamlined approach would improve clarity without losing essential information.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks context like error cases or relationship to siblings. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them, but it could better address usage scenarios to enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'termsToken' fully documented as a UUID for terms acceptance. The description repeats this information without adding extra meaning, such as format examples or contextual usage. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no additional value is provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the terms token status for the customer.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('terms token status'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ac_CreateTermsToken, which would require a more specific distinction to earn a 5.

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 mentions permissions but lists none, offering no practical usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or comparisons to siblings like ac_CreateTermsToken, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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