cpu_get_syndicate

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavior: unknown id is an error, members page past end is empty, public read, and member ordering. It also discloses the return contents and pagination behavior, which is substantial transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the return payload (card fields and members page), error handling, ordering, and pagination. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool for a single syndicate lookup.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds context that members are ordered by joinedAt then address and that membersLimit/membersOffset page the member list, which is not in the schema. This provides extra meaning beyond parameter names.

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 opens one syndicate by id and enumerates the returned card fields plus a members page. The singular 'one syndicate' plus the explicit id parameter distinguish it from list or membership sibling tools.

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 usage when you have a specific syndicate id and want its details and members. However, it doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives like cpu_list_syndicates for discovery or cpu_get_syndicate_membership for membership-specific queries, though the schema helps.

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