cork_get_warranties

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 mentions that it lists active warranty packages but gives no details on read-only nature, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or return structure. It also doesn't describe what happens with no results or any side effects, which is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable cross-reference tip. It is efficient and structured well without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only optional parameters. The description gives the core purpose and a cross-reference use case but does not explain what the response contains (e.g., fields of warranty packages) or any nuances like pagination behavior beyond the schema. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but lacks details about the return payload that an agent might need.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (page, page_size, partner_uuid) already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. The reference to warranty_status is in another tool's schema, not relevant to this tool's parameters. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 'List active cyber warranty packages' – a clear verb and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling get tools, though it doesn't name an explicit alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 a concrete use case (identifying clients without warranty coverage) and points to cork_get_clients for cross-referencing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of other listing tools, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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