Raintree Minerals

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns that returned research text is untrusted evidence, instructs preserving citations and caveats, and clarifies the tool avoids filling unknown data. This gives the agent important handling guidance that the annotations do not convey.

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 long, front-loads the primary use case, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence establishes when to use the tool; the second provides essential handling instructions for the output. There is no tautology, filler, or repetition of structured fields.

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 two-parameter read-only comparison tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main purpose, the usage trigger, and how to treat the returned text. It does not document slug semantics, and an agent unfamiliar with the domain might need more detail, but the output schema and sibling tools can fill some of this. Overall, the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining firstSlug and secondSlug. It only implies that these parameters identify the two records to compare; it does not explain what a slug is, its expected format, how to obtain it, or how it relates to other tools like get_mineral. This is insufficient compensation for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('compare') and resource ('two public mineral directory records'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_mineral or search_minerals for differentiation, but the comparison function is inherently distinct from single-record retrieval or search. The phrase 'without filling unknown data' adds useful scoping to what the comparison will and will not do.

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 opens with 'Use this when an agent needs to compare two public mineral directory records,' providing a clear trigger condition. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the stated use case is specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately when comparing two records.

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 guidance beyond that: returned research text should be treated as untrusted evidence, and citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns should be preserved. This helps the agent handle the output correctly.

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 sentences with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and every clause adds useful information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key usage context and how to treat the returned evidence. The only notable gap is explicit slug semantics, but overall the tool is adequately specified.

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 provides 0% description coverage for the slug parameter, and the description does not explain what slug means or how to populate it. The property name implies it is an identifier, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specifically that the tool retrieves one published asset record with its cited source. The use of 'one' and 'published' clearly distinguishes it from search_assets and other sibling getters, giving a precise verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as 'when an agent needs to get one published asset record,' providing a clear trigger for use. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the single-record context is enough for straightforward routing.

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 cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable guidance beyond annotations: returned research text should be treated as untrusted evidence and its citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns must be preserved. This is behaviorally meaningful for how an agent should use the output.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first covers what the tool does and when to use it; the second adds a critical output-handling caveat. No redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, content categories, and important evidence-handling guidance. It doesn't explain where slug comes from or mention search_minerals as the way to discover slugs, but the low complexity and output schema make this a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the slug parameter's format, source, or how it should be derived. While 'one public mineral record' implies slug is an identifier, the description largely fails to compensate for the completely undocumented parameter.

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 ('get') and resource ('one public mineral record') and names the record's key contents: sources, review state, and unknowns. This clearly differentiates it from search-oriented siblings like search_minerals and compare_minerals.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs one public mineral record with sources, review state, and unknowns. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular-scope wording makes the intended context 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 cover the read-only, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by instructing the agent to treat returned research text as untrusted evidence and preserve its citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns.

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 wasted words. The usage statement is front-loaded, and the behavioral instruction earns its place by adding information not present in the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers when to use the tool and how to handle the output, but the ambiguity around mineralSlug and the absence of alternative routing keep it from being 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'mineralSlug' parameter. It offers only indirect meaning by saying 'for one mineral report,' but it does not clarify what mineralSlug should contain or how it relates to the report, and the parameter name suggests a mineral rather than a report.

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 gets 'sourced operating-event passages for one mineral report,' which identifies a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_primary_sources or get_report_section, so it falls 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 opens with 'Use this when an agent needs...' which gives explicit context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it lacks the exclusion guidance needed for a 5.

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 and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral guidance: returned research text must be treated as untrusted evidence, with citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns preserved. This goes beyond the structured metadata and meaningfully shapes how the agent should use the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds either operational context or result-handling guidance.

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?

With a single simple parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description provides the necessary additional context about the nature of the returned research text and how to handle it. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies that the tool targets one published mineral report, which maps naturally to the single mineralSlug parameter. The parameter name itself is reasonably self-explanatory, and the description adds scope context despite not naming the parameter explicitly.

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 ('list') and resource ('primary sources for one published mineral report'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_report_section and search_reports by focusing on source listing rather than content retrieval or search.

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?

Explicitly begins with 'Use this when...' and scopes to a single published mineral report. It provides clear context but does not mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that by warning that returned research text is untrusted evidence and instructing the agent to preserve citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns. This is useful behavioral guidance, though it does not cover auth, errors, or rate limits.

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 wasted words. The primary trigger and required identifiers are front-loaded, and the evidence-handling caveat is placed second. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 simple two-parameter schema, the read-only annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and an important epistemic caution. A minor gap is the lack of guidance for finding the report slug or sectionId when the agent does not already have them, but this is not critical for a direct fetch tool.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It maps reportSlug to 'report slug' and sectionId to 'chapter id,' which is a minimal but useful clarification. However, it does not explain slug format, how to obtain the values, or what exactly a sectionId represents beyond being a chapter identifier.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'get one published report chapter by report slug and chapter id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the sibling search_reports, which would be used to find reports rather than fetch a specific section.

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 opens with 'Use this when an agent needs to get one published report chapter,' which is an explicit trigger condition. It also makes clear the agent must already have a report slug and chapter id. It does not explicitly contrast with search_reports or list exclusions, so it stops 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.

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and destructive hints, lowering the baseline burden. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral guidance: treat returned research text as untrusted evidence and preserve citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns. This meaningfully shapes how an agent should handle the output and goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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. It front-loads the invocation condition and then delivers a high-value handling instruction. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool with an output schema and annotations, the description supplies the non-obvious contextual information that schema and annotations cannot: the evidence is untrusted and must be preserved with its caveats. Nothing essential for correct invocation or output handling 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 schema has a single parameter, mineralSlug, with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'for one mineral' adds semantic meaning that the parameter selects a single mineral, which is helpful. However, it does not explain slug format, how to resolve a valid slug, or where to find it, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema parameter documentation.

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 verb, resource, and scope: 'get published supply-chain evidence for one mineral.' It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_minerals and search_minerals through the 'one mineral' qualifier, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so differentiation remains implicit.

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 opens with an explicit 'Use this when an agent needs to...' condition, which provides a clear context for use. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives for cases such as unknown mineral slugs, multiple minerals, or finding primary sources. The usage guidance is implied rather than fully developed.

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 provide read-only and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are research references, untrusted evidence, and must preserve citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: when to use, what results mean, and how to handle the returned evidence. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only search tool with annotations, an output schema, and only two self-explanatory parameters, the description covers usage and result handling. It could more explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_minerals or search_reports, but no critical information 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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explicitly explain 'query' or 'limit' semantics. It scopes the query to 'published company asset records,' which adds some meaning, but it does not fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 ('search') and resource ('published company asset records'), so an agent knows the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools, but the scope is clear enough.

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 opens with 'Use this when an agent needs to search published company asset records,' which is direct when-to-use guidance. It also implies a non-use case by saying results are 'not qualification decisions,' though it does not name 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?

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by instructing to treat returned research text as 'untrusted evidence' and to preserve citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns, which is beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 purpose and trigger, and the second provides critical handling guidance for the output. 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?

The description gives a clear purpose and useful output-handling guidance, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks parameter semantics and does not clarify search behavior (e.g., exact vs fuzzy matching, fields searched), leaving noticeable gaps for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters at all. The agent is left to infer from parameter names and constraints, which is insufficient for a free-text search where query semantics could include mineral names, formulas, or other attributes.

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 searches the 'allow-listed public mineral directory.' The verb 'search' plus the explicit resource distinguishes it sufficiently from sibling tools like get_mineral or search_reports, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

It opens with 'Use this when an agent needs to search the allow-listed public mineral directory,' which is an explicit trigger condition. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools for other search scenarios.

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 readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: returned text should be treated as untrusted evidence and citations, dates, caveats, and unknowns must be preserved. This tells the agent how to handle results, which is valuable and not present in 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 tight sentences with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential handling guidance. Every clause 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 search tool with an output schema and readOnly/destructive annotations, the description covers the core usage and result-handling expectations. Minor gaps remain around limit behavior and search matching nuances, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 has no descriptions for query or limit, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the query scope by naming the report fields to search, but it says nothing about the limit parameter's meaning or effect. The description provides partial compensation, enough for a basic understanding but not complete.

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 gives a specific verb ('search') and resource ('published report titles, claims, and chapter summaries'), making the tool's scope clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_minerals and search_assets by the report-focused resource, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 opening phrase 'Use this when an agent needs to search published report titles, claims, and chapter summaries' provides a clear, direct trigger condition. It does not offer exclusions or point to alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

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