get_text_overrides

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 discloses authentication requirements and potential error codes (MISSING, INVALID), which is helpful. But it omits whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Retrieve' but not stated), pagination behavior, or what happens if no overrides exist.

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 structured with clear sections (endpoint, parameters, errors, authentication) and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the parameter list duplicates schema information.

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's relative simplicity (5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers authentication, error codes, and basic parameters. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations, it lacks details on return format, pagination, and the exact structure of returned overrides, leaving some gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description lists parameters with examples (e.g., locale en_US, text codes like tickets_not_yet_on_sale), adding some illustrative value but no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve Text Overrides') and adds useful context ('Customize strings shown during ticket sales per event'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'create_text_overrides', leaving the read-vs-write boundary implicit.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions customization during ticket sales but doesn't explain when to retrieve overrides or how to select between this and create_text_overrides.

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