get_gtts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about pagination for large datasets, which is useful beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional context on pagination. It is efficient with zero waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and pagination but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or return format, which are important for a tool that retrieves data. With no output schema, more guidance on responses would be beneficial.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the 'limit' and 'from' parameters. The description mentions pagination support but does not add meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or practical usage examples, 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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all active GTT orders'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_orders' or 'get_order_history', which might also retrieve order-related data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 for retrieving active GTT orders, particularly with large datasets due to pagination support. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_orders' or 'get_order_history', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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