Shotlee

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the inputs and outputs and mentions the U-100 insulin syringe, adding scope context. However, it does not describe potential error behavior, rounding rules, or the underlying formula, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit for a calculation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core calculation statement followed by a brief usage scope. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (concentration, volume to draw, syringe reading) and usage context. It could be more explicit about units and potential rounding or validation behavior, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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%, with each parameter (vial_mg, bac_water_ml, dose_mg) described in the schema. The description only paraphrases these as 'lyophilized vial size,' 'volume of bacteriostatic water,' and 'target dose,' adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'calculate peptide reconstitution and syringe units' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the outputs (concentration, volume to draw, syringe reading). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_article, search_articles) by focusing on arithmetic rather than information retrieval.

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 says 'Use for peptide and compounded GLP-1 dosing arithmetic,' providing clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so the guidance is sufficient for a simple calculator.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Fetch' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't mention potential errors, authentication, or the role of the locale parameter. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose any edge-case behavior.

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 sentence, 17 words, with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 2-param tool, the description covers the primary parameter (slug) and return format (Markdown). However, it omits any explanation of the locale parameter and possible error cases. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is not fully 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 coverage is only 50%, with locale having no description in the schema. The description clarifies the slug parameter by stating 'by its slug', but it doesn't mention the locale parameter at all. Since the description should compensate for the low schema coverage, this is a gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'full Markdown source of one article' and the method 'by its slug'. It also references search_articles as the source of slugs, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools.

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 phrase 'as returned by search_articles' provides clear context that this tool consumes slugs from search_articles, implying a workflow order. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the reference to a sibling tool gives useful guidance on when to use it.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state the return format (titles and canonical URLs) and the language scope (English). However, it does not disclose optional behavior such as pagination, result ordering, or the default/max limit, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's full behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. It packs essential purpose and usage context into a concise form.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return elements (titles and canonical URLs) and the intended use case. It could be more complete by noting the limit behavior, but given the low complexity, the current level is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 schema covers only 50% of parameters (only 'query' has a description). The description adds meaning for the 'query' parameter (search by keyword) but fails to mention the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving the agent without details on how to control result count. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 a specific verb ('Search') with a specific resource ('English blog corpus') and purpose (find coverage of a drug, peptide, side effect or topic). It distinguishes from siblings: calculate_reconstitution is a calculator, get_article retrieves a specific article, while this tool searches across the corpus.

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 tells when to use the tool ('Use to find Shotlee coverage of a drug, peptide, side effect or topic'). It provides clear context for its intended use case but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_article for a specific known article).

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