get_gia_toc_playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the topic (e.g., no mention of data freshness, pagination, or authorization). With annotations carrying the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the English purpose. The Vietnamese translation is redundant but not detrimental. It is concise and to the point, though a single clear sentence would be more efficient.

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 simple parameter set (2 optional, no required) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail about what the playbooks contain, filtering options, or result format. Annotations cover safety. Could be improved by mentioning typical category values or that results are a list of strings/objects.

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 both parameters documented (category filter, limit). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it only provides domain context. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves playbooks related to Vietnam business dynasties (family-owned conglomerates). The description uses specific terms ('gia tộc kinh doanh') and differentiates from sibling tools like get_bank_rate_playbooks or get_bds_playbooks, which focus on other categories.

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 the many sibling playbook tools (e.g., get_bank_rate_playbooks, get_macro_playbooks). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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