draft_gift_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the message is 'short', but does not elaborate on any behavioral nuances (e.g., whether it queries a catalog, requires specific input formats, or has side effects beyond generating text). Since annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence without filler, but the inclusion of 'Oda Juwotda(오다 주웠다)' adds an unexplained element that may confuse an agent unfamiliar with the phrase. It is still brief and front-loaded with the action, so it earns a 4.

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 4 parameters (3 required), a rich output schema (not shown but indicated), and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to understand the tool's function. It doesn't explain the 'Oda Juwotda' reference nor mention any special requirements, but the presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The only gap is the unexplained phrase, so 4 is reasonable.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds that the message 'fits the gift, relationship, occasion, and tone', which essentially repeats the parameter names without offering extra syntax, formats, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage with minimal additional meaning.

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 'Drafts' and the resource 'gift card message', and specifies it 'fits the gift, relationship, occasion, and tone'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_rush_gift, recommend_gifts, and find_pickup_options, which have different purposes (planning, recommending, finding).

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 the tool is for drafting messages but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions like 'use this when the user has a gift, relationship, and occasion'. It relies on the agent inferring usage from the verb and siblings, which meets the 'implied usage' bar but not explicit guidance.

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