Get offline shop tickets

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

Discloses pagination (bounded pages of at most 5), summary mode behavior (scans up to 500 tickets), and refresh methods. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint: true). Adds significant context beyond annotations.

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 that front-load purpose and pack key details efficiently. Slight room for improvement in structure, but overall concise.

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?

Covers two modes (raw vs summary), pagination, and refresh options. Missing details like explicit return format (next_offset) but schema covers offset. Adequate for a read tool with no output schema.

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 detailed descriptions. The description adds overarching context (e.g., 'bounded pages of at most 5' for limit) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides.

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 tool reads privately cached offline Ametller shop tickets with pagination and optional summary mode. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ametller_ingest_offline_tickets and ametller_sync_offline_tickets by mentioning refresh mechanisms.

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?

Provides context for using summary vs raw tickets and mentions how to refresh data (Gmail + ingest or gws sync). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives.

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