gpss_build_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses two key traits: no network request is sent, and the verification code is masked with ***. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or rate limits, but the core safety behavior is clear.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that states purpose, key behavior, and use case with no wasted words. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 7 input parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description does not provide enough parameter or invocation detail for an agent to use the tool correctly without inspecting the raw 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description mentions only the general idea of checking condition syntax. It does not explain what conditions, qty, kind, skip, output, status, or databases mean or how they should be supplied.

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 and resource: it builds a GPSS API URL without sending it, explicitly distinguishing this from sibling tools like gpss_search and gpss_get that would send requests. It also names the intended check use case.

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?

It clearly says the tool is for checking condition syntax and that it does not send the request, which gives strong context. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to use when actually sending a request, so it falls short of full when-to-use routing.

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