get_validations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch' and does not mention pagination behavior, scope of returned rules, ordering, or any rate limits or permissions. The schema hints at pagination via 'after' and 'first', but the description does not explain the behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence ('Fetch cart and checkout validation rules') with zero filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

This is a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain what a validation rule is, whether it returns cart rules and checkout rules separately or combined, or what the response structure looks like. The lack of output schema increases the burden on the description, which it only partially meets.

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% for the two parameters ('after' and 'first'), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter context, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('cart and checkout validation rules'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_validation, update_validation, and delete_validation. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply it is the read operation for validation rules, and sibling tools suggest create/update/delete counterparts, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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