get_test_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only data fetch (returning data) but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or that it is safe to call. It also does not mention error cases, rate limits, or the exact structure of the returned data. Adequate for a simple retrieval, but lacks depth given the absence of annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a concise usage recommendation. Every word earns its place; no 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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential information: what is returned, its purpose, and how to invoke it. It could optionally describe the response structure more explicitly, but the types of data are listed, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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% — both 'country' and 'section' have descriptions, including supported values and defaults. The description adds context about why these parameters matter (to populate realistic sandbox requests) but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return' and the resource 'official-shaped sandbox test data for a country', enumerating the exact contents (customers, test cards, PIX/Bre-B keys). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_country_rules or get_endpoint_spec, making it easy for an agent to identify this as the correct tool for generating test 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 explicitly says 'Use this to populate sandbox requests with realistic values instead of inventing them', which gives clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with the sibling tools.

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