create_seasonpass

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds a useful hint to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to understand the request body fields, which is a behavioral trait (how to obtain the input schema). It does not contradict annotations and adds modest context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 minimal and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create SeasonPass'). It includes the endpoint and a single argument note without extraneous wording. It is efficient and easy to parse, warranting a 5.

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 create operation with an open body, the description provides the essential instruction to consult the GET/schema endpoint for the field definitions. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, which is already accounted for. Overall, it is reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly, though it could be more explicit about when to use it. A 4 reflects that it is mostly complete.

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 a single 'body' parameter of type object with additionalProperties allowed, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to see the fields, which is a practical pointer but does not describe any specific fields. This partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation, but leaves the agent to fetch the details elsewhere, so a 3 is fair.

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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('SeasonPass'), and the endpoint is given. It is distinct from other create_* tools because 'SeasonPass' is unique among siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only states the action and endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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