get_declines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API limit and suggests mitigation strategies. The tool name 'get' implies read-only, but the description could explicitly state it is non-destructive. However, it sufficiently informs the agent of constraints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a critical note. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiency provides necessary caveats without extraneous 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?

The description covers purpose, aggregation types, filter guidance, and the limit. It lacks details about default fields or return format, but the schema handles parameter descriptions. Given no output schema and 6 parameters, it is nearly complete for an agent to use 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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description provides additional meaning: it explains the aggregation parameter's supported levels ('detail, day, week, month'), gives a concrete example for filter usage with date operators, and implicitly covers the count parameter via the limit note.

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 retrieves declined transaction data, specifying included fields (transaction tokens, decline reasons, merchant information, amounts). The verb 'Get' matches the resource 'declines', and it is distinct from siblings that retrieve other transaction types or 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 guidance on the 10,000-record limit and recommends using narrower date ranges or more specific filters for larger datasets. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools, the context of siblings implies this is the specific tool for declines.

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