retrieve_ssi

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: asynchronous queuing, immediate server response with status and workflowId, long-polling behavior, pendingReason semantics for 'queued' and 'outsideWorkingHours', and guidance against duplicate queueing. This is extremely transparent.

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?

While the description is longer than average, every sentence provides necessary operational detail. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then progressively covers workflow mechanics, retry guidance, and pendingReason interpretations. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by fully explaining the return value structure, the need to call get_workflow_result, and the meaning of pendingReason variants. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to add. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on response handling rather than parameter semantics.

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 opens with a clear verb-object statement: 'retrieve your current SSI (Social Selling Index)', including the internal action name (st.retrieveSSI). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrieve_performance which target different data.

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 explicit usage instructions: call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName, do not retry while a workflow is running, and how to handle pendingReason values. It clearly explains the asynchronous workflow and correct next steps.

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