vtex_get_gift_card_by_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether it's read-only (likely, but not confirmed), if it requires authentication, error handling (e.g., invalid codes), or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 sentence with zero waste: 'Search gift card by redemption code'. It's front-loaded with the core action and parameter, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, error responses), usage context vs. siblings, and any mention of return values. For a tool with 1 parameter, it's minimal but misses key contextual elements needed for effective agent use.

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 100%, with the parameter 'redemptionCode' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 'Search gift card by redemption code' clearly states the action (search) and resource (gift card), with the parameter 'redemption code' specifying the search key. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_get_gift_card' (likely by ID) and 'vtex_list_gift_cards' (list all), though not explicitly named. However, it could be more specific about what 'search' entails (e.g., retrieval vs. lookup).

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. Siblings include 'vtex_get_gift_card' (likely by ID) and 'vtex_list_gift_cards', but the description doesn't mention these or clarify use cases (e.g., use this for code-based lookup vs. ID-based). Usage is implied by the parameter but not explicitly stated.

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