internal_exfgls_v1

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions required body and API key environment variables, but does not describe response format, side effects (though GET implies read-only), or any rate limits. The 'Excluded from Family Sharing' label adds context but not operational 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 compact, with three concise sentences covering method, resource, required body, API key, and a pointer to full instructions. No waste, but the phrasing is telegraphic.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, and with a required body whose structure is undefined, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. The pointer to the guide helps but the description itself leaves too many unknowns.

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 schema lists 5 parameters with generic descriptions; the description only restates that body is required. It does not explain what the body should contain for this endpoint, which is critical since body is required. Schema coverage is high but superficial.

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 identifies the endpoint as '[GET] /internal/exfgls/v1' and labels it 'Excluded from Family Sharing', indicating a GET request related to that topic. However, it lacks a specific action verb (e.g., 'list', 'retrieve') and does not distinguish this internal endpoint from sibling tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only references external documentation (itad://guide/calling) for calling instructions, not selection criteria.

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