Get2Great — management and selection science magazine

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact output components (metadata, markdown body, citations) and identifying a canonical valid slug, which goes 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and what it returns, and the second provides a practical usage example. Both sentences earn their place.

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?

This is a low-complexity, single-parameter tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety. The description adds a canonical slug example, and sibling tools are available for discovering other slugs. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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 fully documents the slug parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting a specific slug to its real-world content ('how-to-tell-whos-good' for the lead essay on telling who is good at the job), giving the agent meaningful guidance beyond the schema's example.

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 action and resource: 'Returns one Get2Great magazine essay as structured content' with metadata, markdown body, and citations. The word 'one' distinguishes it from the list and search sibling tools, making its role unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving a specific magazine essay by slug, and it provides a concrete example slug for the lead essay. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with list_magazine_articles or search_magazine_articles, so an agent must infer when to choose this over alternatives.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'List' wording is consistent with that. The description adds some context about the feeds being free and machine-readable plus an OpenAPI link, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the OpenAPI reference provides an optional avenue for further detail without cluttering the main description.

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, parameterless listing tool with read-only annotations, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. It names the resource, notes the feeds are free and machine-readable, and gives an OpenAPI link. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape could help, but the OpenAPI reference partially fills that gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriately high.

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 ('List') and a distinct resource ('Get2Great's free machine-readable feeds'). It is distinguishable from the sibling magazine/management tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any comparative context with sibling tools such as list_magazine_articles or search_magazine_articles.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the main safety profile. The description adds the concrete slugs and launch-cohort scope, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or that the list is a fixed curated set beyond what openWorldHint=false already conveys. It does not contradict 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second provides the complete list of known slugs, which is directly useful to the agent. Every element earns its place.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is sufficient. It identifies the exact dataset and scope, and the known slugs remove ambiguity about what will be returned. No additional instructions about return shape or side effects are needed.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter behavior. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, 4 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('launch-cohort magazine essays'), and the exact scope ('selection science and better management'). It also enumerates the six known slugs, making the listing precise. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from them, but the noun phrases are clear enough to distinguish from get_magazine_article, list_get2great_feeds, and list_management_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 implies its usage: use this tool to retrieve the six known launch-cohort essays. It gives no explicit guidance on when to choose search_magazine_articles or get_magazine_article instead, and doesn't state exclusions. With sibling tool names available as context, the intended case is inferable but not directly 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. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Metadata only' and explaining that execution endpoints are auth-gated elsewhere, which clarifies scope and user expectations 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 two concise sentences, front-loads the core action and resource, and adds only one clarifying clause about metadata/auth. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description fully conveys what the tool returns, what scope it covers, and where execution happens. Nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100% with an empty properties object. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb (List), a clear resource (Get2Great-lane manager-facing tools), and scopes it with examples (strategy frameworks + management/HR practice). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling magazine/feed tools by targeting management tool metadata rather than articles or feeds.

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 states that this returns metadata only and that execution endpoints are auth-gated elsewhere, so an agent knows not to use this tool for executing tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for execution, but the context is clear enough.

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the substring matching scope across specific fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior such as result ordering, limit, or how 'substring' interacts with the case-insensitive q parameter.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The action ('substring search') and the searched fields are both present and immediately understandable.

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 single-parameter read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what 'dek' means or by explicitly distinguishing itself from list/get siblings, but nothing critical 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 q is already documented as a case-insensitive search string. The description adds value by specifying that q is matched as a substring across title, dek, pattern, and body, which goes beyond the schema's generic example.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('substring search') and resource with scope ('across magazine title, dek, pattern, and body'), making it clear this is a search operation rather than a list or get. The field list differentiates it from sibling tools like list_magazine_articles.

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 the tool is for searching within specific magazine fields, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over get_magazine_article or list_magazine_articles. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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