vtex_get_gift_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get gift card by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns structured data or raw output, handles errors (e.g., invalid ID), or has rate limits. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 ('Get gift card by ID')—a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specification, as it lacks necessary context for effective use. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses points for not including critical details that would enhance usability.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., gift card details, balance, status), error handling, or how it fits into the broader VTEX ecosystem with siblings like 'vtex_get_gift_card_by_code'. For a retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full behavior and output.

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 (parameter 'giftCardId' is documented as 'Gift Card ID'), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the ID format, source, or validation rules. This meets the minimum viable level given the schema's completeness.

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 gift card by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('gift card'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch data). It distinguishes from sibling 'vtex_get_gift_card_by_code' by specifying 'by ID', but doesn't clarify how it differs from 'vtex_list_gift_cards' or other retrieval tools. This is a basic but functional purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'vtex_get_gift_card' over 'vtex_get_gift_card_by_code' (e.g., for ID vs. code lookup) or 'vtex_list_gift_cards' (e.g., for bulk retrieval). There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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