delegation_to_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is exceptionally transparent. It discloses read-only nature, HTTP 404 for reversed pairs, the zero-amount historical object caveat, preservation of fields, absence of currency conversion, bounded GET, no auto-paging, forwarding of filters without effectiveness guarantee, array limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This goes far beyond typical descriptions.

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 verbose and contains redundancy: 'One bounded GET; no automatic paging.' and 'Makes one logical GET request Does not auto-fetch continuation pages.' say essentially the same thing. The structure is a stream of clauses rather than organized sentences. However, the core purpose is front-loaded, and the extra details are useful despite the lack of polish.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers virtually every aspect an agent needs: purpose, expected behavior, failure modes, data handling, limits, and caveats. It even hints at response fields (amount strings, rental fields, nullable dates). It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation without ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify directionality ('from explicit player to explicit target') and states that required inputs reflect tool policy. However, it does not elaborate on the parameters' data types, formats, or additional constraints beyond what the schema already provides (strings, minLength 1). Some value is added, but it is not comprehensive.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the directed SPSP delegation from explicit player to explicit target.' This distinguishes it from siblings like delegations_outgoing and delegations_incoming, which imply broader or direction-based listing. The detail about reversing the pair returning 404 further differentiates it as a directed pair lookup.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for a specific directed pair, and notes that reversing the pair fails. It also clarifies exclusions ('No currency conversion or card-delegation inference') and mentions bounded GET without paging. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X when Y', so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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