Bonebenders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it recognizes synonyms, accepts Italian or English terms, and returns definition, URL, related terms, and in-depth articles. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 front-loaded and structured, starting with the core action and scope. However, the final English sentence essentially repeats the opening Italian sentence, adding redundancy without new semantic content. The additional details about synonyms and returned fields earn their place, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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 low-complexity read-only lookup with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It names the resource, subject coverage, language handling, and the types of data returned. It does not explain behavior on missing terms or how results are ordered, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 schema fully documents both 'term' and 'limit'. The description reinforces that the term can be in Italian or English and mentions synonyms, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 and resource: 'Cerca un termine nel glossario odontoiatrico di bonebenders.com' and specifies the domain and categories. It is easy to understand this is a glossary lookup tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools bonebenders_read and bonebenders_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage: look up a dental term in Italian or English, and mentions synonym recognition and related articles. This gives useful context about when the tool is appropriate. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over bonebenders_read or bonebenders_search, and no exclusions are stated.

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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the output is Markdown and includes specific sections, and says 'verbatim' indicating exact text. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 relatively concise, with the main action front-loaded. However, it repeats the same information in English at the end ('Read the full text of one document, verbatim, with its citation line'), which is redundant with the Italian text. This wastes a sentence.

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 annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the output format and content, and how to specify the target document. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, but those are not essential for a read operation.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a bit by explaining that ref can be a URL or an id from bonebenders_search, and gives examples. However, this is mostly redundant with the schema examples, so it adds minimal value.

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 it returns the full text of a document in Markdown, listing specific content elements (sections, FAQ, cited sources, revision date, citation format). It distinguishes itself from siblings by accepting a URL or an id from bonebenders_search, making it unambiguous that this is the tool for reading a specific document.

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 implies usage by explaining the input can be a URL or an id from search, which guides the agent to use search first to obtain the id. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling context makes it 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral details: results are snippets/quotes with source URLs, and each result includes title, URL, date, and clinical review status. It accurately reflects a read-only search operation without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the tool's scope, followed by return-value details and usage examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the bilingual structure mirrors the tool's intended use.

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 having no output schema, the description fully describes what the tool returns and what kinds of queries are appropriate. Combined with the rich input schema and annotations, this provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already covers all parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance for the query parameter by specifying clinical keyword usage and providing examples in both languages. This adds value beyond the schema's generic 'keywords or short question' description.

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 identifies a specific action ('Cerca'/'Search') and a well-defined resource: the entire Bonebenders corpus, enumerating content types from blog articles to fixed pages. It also states what is returned (title, URL, date, clinical review, most relevant passage), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from the more specialized 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 description provides clear usage context: search across a defined clinical corpus, with guidance to use clinical keywords in Italian or English and concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the search-specific language and output format imply appropriate use cases.

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