get_user_consents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates the read-only nature via 'Retrieves' and adds an auth requirement, plus what fields are returned. However, it does not describe behavior when no valid session exists, whether any side effects occur, or the shape/format of the response.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and contains no filler. Every clause adds relevant information about scope, content, or prerequisites.

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 no-parameter read-only getter, the description adequately names the auth requirement and the specific returned data (channels and partner preferences). The main gap is the lack of explicit failure-mode or response-structure detail, but the description is otherwise sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. The description still adds value by clarifying the semantic content of the consent flags returned.

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 ('Retrieves') and names a clear resource ('marketing and communication consent preferences'), scoped to the authenticated Carrefour France user. It also enumerates the communication channels covered, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_marketing_placements or get_loyalty_balance.

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 clearly states the key prerequisite ('requires an authenticated Carrefour session') and the returned scope, making it obvious when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with consent-preference retrieval.

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