display_panels

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and provides almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only retrieval, whether authentication or a session is required, whether panels are personalized or region-specific, or how many are returned. Only the presence of an output schema saves it from being completely opaque.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words and the resource is front-loaded, but the terseness crosses into under-specification: there is no verb to anchor the sentence and no second clause adding the information an agent actually needs.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and a one-parameter read tool is inherently simple. Still, it omits the read-only nature and the origin of the page id, leaving an agent to infer behavior it should have been told.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and all it offers is that the id refers to a 'page'. It does not say where a page id comes from (content_page, home_layout, a URL) or what format it takes, which is the key practical question for this call.

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 names a resource ('retail-media display panels') and its key ('page id'), but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never says whether it fetches, lists, or creates panels. Several siblings (content_page, teasers, home_layout) serve related page-content purposes, and nothing here distinguishes it from them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent must guess whether this is the right call for page content versus content_page or teasers.

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