siigo_get_warehouses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('Get warehouses catalog') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by specifying the scope (e.g., 'Retrieve all warehouses').

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It states the purpose but lacks completeness for a retrieval tool: it doesn't explain the return values (e.g., list of warehouses with IDs and names), behavioral context, or usage compared to siblings. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.

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 'Get warehouses catalog' clearly indicates a retrieval operation ('Get') on a specific resource ('warehouses catalog'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'warehouses catalog' entails (e.g., list of warehouses, their details) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'siigo_get_products' beyond the resource name.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings include other 'get' tools for different resources (e.g., 'siigo_get_products'), the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others.

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