getUserGifts

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 only states that the tool returns an OwnedGifts object on success; there is no mention of pagination behavior, filtering effects, ownership semantics, or any side effects. For a 9-parameter read operation, this is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 brief sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the return type, which is useful since no output schema is present. Every sentence earns its 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?

Despite having 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only a surface-level definition. It does not explain how the return object is structured, how pagination works, how the filter flags interact, or how this relates to sibling gift tools. For an agent to use this tool correctly and confidently, substantially more context is needed.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter, including limit, offset, user_id, and the various exclusion flags. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond saying 'given user', but because the schema handles parameter documentation well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns the gifts received and owned by a given user, and mentions the result type OwnedGifts. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from closely related sibling tools like getAvailableGifts, getChatGifts, or getBusinessAccountGifts, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus its siblings, or what kind of user/gift context it is intended for. The description implies a user-specific gift lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives.

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