generate_signed_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: automatic handling of query_hash branching and idempotency headers. However, it does not mention that the generated code is a safe, read-only operation or what side effects (e.g., actual API calls) might occur. The disclosure is partial but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately followed by a key behavioral detail. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no redundancy.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (the generated code snippet), nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., possession of API keys). The agent lacks critical context for invoking the tool correctly.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not clarify how 'query_hash' or 'idempotency headers' relate to specific parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'generates' and specifies the resource as 'complete signed code for calling specific endpoints', listing four languages. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sign_request' (which signs an existing request) and 'verify_signature' (which verifies).

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 such as 'sign_request' or 'signing_guide'. The description lacks explicit context for when-not-to-use or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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