Conflicting Custom Formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only says it finds formats sharing specs and names, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, supports pagination (despite pagination params), or what the output format is. This omission is significant for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for purpose, use cases, parameters) and could be more informative without being verbose.

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 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It does not help the agent understand how to construct a valid request or interpret results, making it insufficient for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides zero information about any of the 11 parameters (e.g., 'to', 'app', 'from', 'page', etc.). The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter names in 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 states it finds 'custom formats sharing equivalent specification counts and names', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like 'duplicate_custom_formats' (likely exact duplicates) and 'get_custom_formats' (list all). However, 'equivalent specification counts' is slightly ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies detection of potential conflicts but does not specify scenarios or provide exclusion criteria.

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