he_get_my_exchanges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation with pagination but does not mention authorization, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but could be richer.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose efficiently without unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: resource, filtering, and pagination. It lacks details about the return format but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'with pagination' aligns with limit/offset, but no additional semantic context is provided for parameters.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'user's exchanges', and the scope including status filter and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other types of data.

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 usage for retrieving exchanges by status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives like he_get_conversations or he_search_homes. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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