cpu_list_syndicates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that only 'trusted facts' are returned, that player-authored content is deliberately excluded, and that this is a 'Public read.' It also enumerates exactly which card fields are returned, which is useful behavioral context.

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 dense but efficient: it establishes purpose, enumerates filtering/sorting/pagination, lists returned fields, names the sibling to use for excluded data, and states access level. No sentence is wasted, though the many embedded clauses make it slightly heavy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates well by naming the exact fields returned and clarifying the intentional exclusion and the alternative tool. It could additionally describe response envelope or pagination metadata, but the core calling context is adequately complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a convenient grouping of parameters into 'filter by name or member-count band, sort ..., and page with limit/offset,' but every parameter is already well documented in the schema with defaults and meaning.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Browse the syndicate registry' — and clarifies exactly what a syndicate is. It also distinguishes expected behavior from a sibling by noting that player-authored content is intentionally excluded and belongs to cpu_get_syndicate_player_content.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool for browsing/filtering/sorting the registry and explicitly directs the agent to cpu_get_syndicate_player_content when player-authored name/link data is needed. It does not broadly compare against all syndicate-related siblings, but the main alternative is named.

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