getBusinessAccountGifts

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 adds meaningful context by stating the required permission ('can_view_gifts_and_stars business bot right') and the success return type ('OwnedGifts object'). It does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, but the 'Returns' language and 'get' verb strongly imply it.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the result, the scope, the permission requirement, and the success return type. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is 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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool returns, for whom, and what permission is required. It only lacks a more detailed breakdown of the OwnedGifts return structure, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly using the thoroughly described input schema.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond pointing to the business account context, which is already reflected in the required business_connection_id parameter. No parameter semantics are missing, but the description also does not enhance them.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('gifts received and owned by a managed business account'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling gift-related tools by scoping to managed business accounts rather than user or chat gifts.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is for managed business accounts, and it states the required business bot right. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'managed business account' scope gives enough situational guidance for correct selection.

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