lookup_decisioning_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It declares the tool is 'Read-only', which indicates no side effects. However, it does not explain what 'resolved' means, potential performance implications, or authentication requirements beyond the implied access_token parameter.

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 extremely concise (one sentence plus 'Read-only') with no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices parameter documentation for brevity, which limits its utility.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover parameter meanings and output expectations. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool and what to expect in return.

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%, yet the description provides no information about the two parameters ('access_token', 'include_deprecated'). The user receives no guidance on their purpose, requiredness, or acceptable values, which is a significant deficiency.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('full resolved Personalized Offer Items decisioning schema'), including what it contains (all fieldgroups, OOB fields, custom tenant fields). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_fieldgroup' and 'list_schema_fieldgroups' by specifying the full resolved schema.

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 implies use for fetching the full resolved schema, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_fieldgroup' or 'list_schema_fieldgroups'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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