cpu_get_syndicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds. It discloses member ordering, pagination semantics, error behavior for unknown ids, empty page behavior, deliberate exclusions, and the public-read nature of the call.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: returned data, ordering, pagination behavior, error semantics, exclusions, and alternative routing.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It explains the return payload, member page structure, ordering, error conditions, empty-page behavior, and what is intentionally omitted, giving an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents id, membersLimit, and membersOffset; the description adds behavioral context like ordering and empty-page results, but does not materially extend the parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Open one syndicate by id' and itemizes exactly what is returned (trusted card fields plus a page of members). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling cpu_get_syndicate_player_content by explicitly noting that player-authored fields are excluded.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: retrieving a syndicate by id with optional pagination. It explicitly directs agents to cpu_get_syndicate_player_content when player-authored name/link data is needed, providing an actionable alternative.

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