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 delivers: it discloses the 404-on-reversal behavior, the zero-amount object observation, preservation of fields, no currency conversion, no card-delegation inference, no automatic paging, array limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is far more than a typical description provides.

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 purpose statement, but it is bloated and repetitive: 'One bounded GET; no automatic paging' is essentially restated as 'Makes one logical GET request and does not auto-fetch continuation pages.' Generic caveats about filters and sort effectiveness also appear for a tool with only two required parameters, so several sentences do not earn their place.

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 simple two-parameter GET with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers request semantics, directional constraints, edge cases, data-preservation behavior, paging, truncation, and hard failure modes. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret unexpected results.

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, and it does by explaining that 'player' and 'target' form a directed delegation pair and that order matters ('reversing that pair returned HTTP 404'). It adds directional meaning the schema cannot convey, though it stops short of giving concrete value formats or examples.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('directed SPSP delegation'), and the exact scope ('from explicit player to explicit target'). This clearly differentiates the tool from list-style siblings like delegations_outgoing or delegations_incoming, which do not target one directed pair.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: this is for a directed player-to-target pair, and reversing the pair returns 404, so the agent knows both arguments and their order are essential. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the directed-pair framing makes the intended use clear.

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