ruddur_verify_entitlement

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world hints. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the server accepts aliases (marketplaceListingId and customerUserId) and specifies required authorization scopes. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful operational detail.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds essential alias and scope details. Every sentence earns its place and the tool is easy to scan.

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 description is concise but omits the return value/response format, which matters for a 'verify' tool without an output schema. It also does not mention what happens on invalid IDs or when entitlement is false. Given the annotations cover safety and the description covers scope/aliases, it is adequate but not complete.

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 only documents generic body and query wrappers with high coverage, while the actual domain parameters (marketplaceListingId, customerUserId) are only mentioned as aliases in the description. This adds some meaning, but the description does not clarify where these parameters go (body vs query), whether they are required, or their types. The schema's generic description provides limited help for the actual invocation.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Verify a user's entitlement to a creator listing.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools, none of which perform entitlement verification. No ambiguity or 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?

It states a concrete precondition for use: 'Requires one of scope: marketplace.entitlements, marketplace.manage.' This gives clear context on when the tool can be invoked. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the unique purpose makes alternatives less relevant.

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