run_api_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool runs 'login and order tests', implying it performs actions (potentially mutations), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (read-only vs. destructive), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., creating test data), or includes rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with systems.

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: 'Run API test for service terms compliance (login and order tests)'. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes clarifying details in parentheses, making it appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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 complexity (likely a test tool with potential system interactions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the test does (e.g., simulates actions, validates responses), what it returns (e.g., pass/fail results, logs), or any constraints (e.g., environment-specific). For a tool with no structured safety or output info, more detail is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by implying the test scope ('login and order tests'), which provides context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't detail any optional configurations or inputs, though none are required.

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 tool's purpose: 'Run API test for service terms compliance (login and order tests)'. It specifies the verb ('Run'), resource ('API test'), and scope ('service terms compliance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_terms_status or place_order. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., how it differs from check_terms_status beyond being a test).

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether authentication is needed), timing (e.g., for compliance verification), or exclusions (e.g., not for production use). Sibling tools like check_terms_status might overlap in purpose, but no comparison is made.

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