getDistributionRecord

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Query' wording is consistent and adds a concrete rate limit of 50 req/s. It also previews response content, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or other behavioral details relevant to a query 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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the rate limit cleanly separated. No filler or redundant restatement of annotations appears.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter-level documentation, the description must carry more weight. It gives the overall purpose and some output fields, but three required parameters (especially awardId and specCode) remain ambiguous, leaving an agent uncertain about how to construct a valid call.

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%, and the description only indirectly hints that accountId identifies the user and that consumed amount may relate to withUsedAmount. The required awardId and specCode parameters are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the specific verb ('Query'), the resource ('voucher distribution records'), and the target ('for a specified user'). It also lists informative output aspects like claim status, validity period, and consumed amount, which helps distinguish it from related award tools such as distributeAward or getAwardInfo.

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 implies usage when you need voucher distribution records for a user, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. With many sibling tools available, some direct routing guidance would strengthen this dimension.

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