get_gotchas

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say whether results are exhaustive or ranked, whether the filters are combined with AND or OR, or what happens when a filter matches nothing. Only the read-shaped 'get' phrasing hints at safety.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the Args block repeats schema defaults verbatim and adds no information, so a chunk of the text doesn't earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and four optional filters keep the call surface simple. But with zero annotation and zero schema coverage, the description should explain filter semantics and relationship to sibling knowledge tools, and it doesn't.

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's Args block is the only documentation — and it merely restates parameter names with defaults already in the schema. It doesn't explain valid values for 'phase' or 'module' (no enums exist), nor the default semantics of empty string vs 'all'.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (non-obvious pitfalls/gotchas) with filterable dimensions (module, country, domain area), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_country_rules. It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from get_country_rules, which is the nearest-sounding sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 versus get_country_rules, search_knowledge, or traverse_decision_tree, all of which could plausibly surface similar knowledge. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the filters.

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