Sage Learning Printables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the response contains, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The list of returned fields is long but earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information and the id provenance. An agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema description already explains that the id comes from search_printables with an example. The description reinforces the provenance but does not add syntax, format, or validation details 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?

States a specific verb and resource: get one printable by id from search_printables. It also enumerates the returned fields (title, day, story, color key, print/download links), which makes the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishes it from the sibling search tool.

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 explicitly ties usage to an id obtained from search_printables, giving a clear precondition. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the sibling as an alternative, but the implied flow (search first, then fetch one) is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: relevance-vs-recency sorting semantics and the cursor-based pagination loop ('Pass nextCursor back as cursor for more').

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: scope first, ordering semantics second, result shape and pagination last. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates precisely by naming the returned fields (id, pageUrl, imageUrl, nextCursor) and what each is for. Combined with the 100%-covered six-parameter schema and full annotation set, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: it explains that the cursor parameter is fed from the returned nextCursor, closing the pagination loop. It also frames query as the switch between relevance and recency ordering, which no single param description states.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Sage's free color-by-number math printables) plus audience scope (ages 4-8, grades K-2), and names the follow-up sibling get_printable with the id field that links them. An agent can distinguish this from get_printable without opening either schema.

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 ordering rule 'newest first when browsing, most relevant first with a query' implicitly tells the agent when to supply a query versus omit it, and the reference to get_printable routes the agent onward for retrieval. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion is given, keeping it short of a 5.

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