delegations_outgoing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it reasonably well: it discloses no currency conversion, no card-delegation inference, one bounded GET, no automatic paging, local row/size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. The value is slightly diluted by confusing repetition and the odd 'Two pages of two' clause, but the behavioral disclosures are substantive.

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 overlong and repetitive: paging is stated twice in different words, and 'Two pages of two matched the first four records' reads like stray implementation/test detail. Useful disclaimers are buried among vague policy language, so the structure is neither tight nor well front-loaded.

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 bounded read endpoint, it covers truncation, paging behavior, and absence of inference/conversion, which is valuable. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, it leaves the return shape only weakly implied and does not define what each parameter actually controls.

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 needed to compensate, but it does not explain player, limit, offset, sort, or order semantics. Phrases like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' are vague and not parameter-specific. The only concrete hint is the 100-row/256 KiB local limit, which loosely matches the limit maximum.

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 ('outgoing SPSP delegation records'), and defines the directionality clearly: each returned player is a recipient of the requested player. This distinguishes it from incoming-delegation tools even without naming a sibling.

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?

Directionality is implied enough for an agent to infer when this tool applies, but the description never explicitly says 'use this for outgoing delegations' or points to alternatives like delegations_incoming or delegation_to_target. It provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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