knowbe4_store_purchases_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states this is a read/list operation but provides no detail on pagination behavior, ordering, what fields each purchase record includes, caching, or any access requirements. The parenthetical about ModStore content adds some context, but the description mostly restates the obvious.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The description is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. It could arguably be condensed, but it is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and no sentence is extraneous.

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 tool is a simple listing operation with full schema coverage and a get-counterpart tool exists (store_purchases_get). However, the description doesn't note the relationship to knowbe4_store_purchases_get or clarify what fields/return shape the list provides, and there's no output schema to fill that gap. For a straightforward list endpoint this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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%, with both parameters (page, per_page) described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No compensation needed but also no added value.

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 verb 'List' with the resource 'store purchases' and adds scope ('training content bought from the KnowBe4 ModStore'). It clarifies what is shown ('purchased modules and content'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the resource is specific enough and distinct from the other knowbe4 list tools, most of which target phishing/training campaigns or users.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't differentiate from knowbe4_store_purchases_get (the singular counterpart), nor does it explain when querying store purchases would be appropriate versus training enrollments or training campaigns. There is no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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