tie_deviances_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and delivers. It discloses pagination mechanics (cursor pagination, 1–5 API calls), the safety cap logic, and the data fields returned (checkerId, adObjectId). It also clarifies the client-side filtering behavior for profile_id, which is beyond parameter semantics.

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 and well-structured with a purpose-led opening, a data note, and a parameter list. Each sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's functionality, pagination behavior, parameter semantics, and ID resolution paths. It doesn't fully describe the output record structure beyond the two key fields, but given the context and sibling tools, it is sufficient for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 description includes an Args section that explains each parameter's purpose and behavior, going far beyond the schema's type/default only. It defines client-side filtering, resolved inclusion logic, batch size meaning, and the max_batches safety cap with concrete record limits. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 all IoE deviances in a paginated bulk call, distinguishing it from the per-checker fan-out approach. It also positions it as the recommended starting point for remediation workflows, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly identifies this as the bulk alternative to per-checker fan-out and recommends it for remediation-plan workflows. It also instructs users on how to map IDs using sibling tools, providing clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly naming the per-checker alternatives, but the context signals and sibling list imply them.

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