xendit_get_fixed_va

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'Critical for Wrong VA investigations,' hinting at a read-only, diagnostic use case, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's a read operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a single sentence. The second sentence adds contextual value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidelines, but overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage, but doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error cases or response details, which are important for a tool with no structured output or annotations. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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, with 'vaId' documented as 'Xendit fixed VA ID.' The description adds minimal semantic context by reinforcing the parameter's purpose ('by Xendit VA ID'), but doesn't provide additional details like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get fixed virtual account details by Xendit VA ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('fixed virtual account details'), and key identifier ('Xendit VA ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'xendit_get_va_payment' or 'xendit_get_transaction', which might also retrieve VA-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides some usage context with 'Critical for Wrong VA investigations,' which implies this tool is used in error-checking scenarios. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'xendit_get_va_payment' or other sibling tools), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than fully defined.

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