faceit_getOrganizerHubs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It includes endpoint info and parameter details, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, or what happens when organizer_id is invalid. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise (about 5 lines) with a clear structure: purpose statement, usage hint, endpoint, parameter list, return type. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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 no output schema, the description states 'Returns: Hubs list' which is minimal. It explains all three parameters adequately, but lacks details on the structure of hub objects or possible error conditions. It is minimally complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with type and constraints (e.g., 'organizer_id: The id of the organizer'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Retrieve all hubs of an organizer' and 'list hubs owned by a known organizer,' making the verb+resource explicit. It differentiates from sibling tools like faceit_searchHubs by specifying retrieval by organizer ID.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use to list hubs owned by a known organizer.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., faceit_searchHubs for searching by name), leaving some gap in decision guidance.

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