get_utrs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each UTR's SHA-256 hash is recomputed for spot-checking, and pagination is cursor-style on closed_at. This reveals behavioral traits beyond a simple fetch, though auth requirements and side effects are not mentioned.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by relevant detail and pagination. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 does not fully explain return format or pagination details like cursor handling. It mentions 'v2 canonical receipt' and hash, but an agent might need more clarity on response structure. Adequate but with 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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implicitly relating closed_at to the 'since' parameter via pagination mention. No further parameter details are provided.

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 fetches raw Universal Trade Receipts for an agent, specifies the resource and action, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it provides v2 canonical receipts with recomputed SHA-256 hashes. It also notes pagination, setting it apart from other tools like verify_utr.

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 by describing the tool's function but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_track_record, verify_utr). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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