get_reimbursements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation (non-destructive) but does not disclose other behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, or data format. The stub limitation is noted, but more detail would improve 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 sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and a key limitation, making it concise and well-structured.

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 the schema covering parameters, the description lacks information on return values, pagination, or any behavior beyond being a stub. With no output schema and no annotations, more context is needed for full usability.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds little beyond that. It does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, resulting in a baseline score.

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 specifies the tool reads FBA reimbursement records under the Inventory category. The verb 'read' and resource 'reimbursements' are explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other data.

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 states it's a hosted endpoint only and the local server is an introspection stub, which guides the agent to not rely on local execution. However, it lacks direct comparison to alternative tools for reimbursements.

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