Ravel Edition

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantive context by enumerating what the record contains: sources, edition, comité de lecture, recordings, ouvrage et prix, plus French and English page addresses. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or matching rules, but the return-content disclosure is genuinely useful.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the return ('fiche complète') and then lists contents; nothing is wasted. The list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what will come back.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so item by item. Annotations handle the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain: behavior when the work is not found and how ambiguous titles are resolved.

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 single 'work' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the title-or-page-address duality and concrete examples. The description adds no format or matching detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 verb 'Renvoie' plus the resource 'fiche complète d'une œuvre de la Ravel Edition' is specific and the enumeration of record contents makes the tool's output scope concrete. It never names the sibling search_catalogue, however, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone when to fetch a work versus search the catalogue.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description suggests you call it once you already know which work you want, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of the search_catalogue alternative for discovery. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope (the news categories returned) but says nothing about pagination behavior, default result counts, or ordering, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it efficiently states the resource and its content scope.

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 news feed with no output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description provides enough to call it correctly. Only the absence of return-format or ordering context keeps it from a 5.

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%, and the schema already documents limit (default 10, max 60), query (keyword filter), and language (fr/en enum). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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+resource (latest news from Ravel Edition) and enumerates the content covered (concerts, créations, enregistrements, publications, presse). It is clear and recognizable, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools (get_work, search_catalogue, list_orchestras, ordering_info), 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related content. The name implies a news feed, but the description offers no explicit contextual guidance for selection.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result carries country and continent data, which is modest but real context; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope plus returned fields are stated immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is the better failure mode.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the domain, the scope, and the fields returned. It falls short only on usage routing and result-shape details like ordering or completeness.

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 single optional 'country' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including French examples and the fact that it also matches continents. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 resource (orchestras) and scopes it precisely: those that have played or still play Ravel Edition editions, and notes the returned fields (country, continent). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_catalogue, which could plausibly return overlapping data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among get_work, latest_news, ordering_info or search_catalogue. The agent must infer that this is the tool for orchestra listings purely from the name.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and closed-world scope are covered. The description adds useful scope detail on the topics it returns (contact, payment, VAT, conditions), but says nothing about output format, currency, language of the content, or whether pricing figures are static.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence scoped tightly by a parenthetical topic list. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations, and nothing to trim.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it names the vendor, the two transaction types (buy/rent), and the topical coverage. It could be slightly stronger by noting the content is static reference text rather than live pricing or inventory.

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 takes zero parameters (empty schema, additionalProperties: false), so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is parameter-free by framing the result as fixed informational content.

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 information-retrieval purpose: how to purchase works/scores or rent orchestra materials from the Ravel Edition, and enumerates the covered topics (contact, payment, VAT, conditions). It is distinguishable from siblings by resource (ordering/purchase info vs. catalogue, orchestras, news), though the leading 'Comment acheter...' is a bit indirect rather than an explicit 'returns info about' verb.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is for questions about buying or renting Ravel Edition materials. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no exclusion, and no routing to alternatives (e.g. search_catalogue for finding works, get_work for details).

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 safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs additive context — and it delivers: it enumerates the returned fields (titre, volume, année de composition/édition, durée, effectif, ISMN, adresse de la fiche) and discloses the empty-parameter default of returning the entire catalogue. It stops short of saying anything about result size limits or pagination, which matters for a tool that can return everything.

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 purpose and corpus, with zero filler. The returned-field enumeration is a long list but earns its place given there is no output schema; only minor trimming would be possible.

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 two-optional-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, corpus scope, returned fields, and default behavior under missing parameters — everything an agent needs to decide whether to call it and what to expect back.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (query covers titre/volume/effectif/ISMN; category gives examples like orchestre, concerto, chambre, piano). The description adds return-value information but nothing about parameter syntax, matching behavior, or how query and category combine — so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Cherche') and a well-scoped resource (le catalogue de la Ravel Edition), plus the sub-corpora covered (volumes, éditions révisées, orchestrations). It is distinguishable from get_work (single work lookup), list_orchestras, and latest_news, but it never names those siblings explicitly to force the distinction.

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?

States one useful usage rule — 'Sans paramètre, renvoie tout le catalogue' — which tells the agent how the no-filter case behaves. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_work for a known title, nor on when a filtered search is expected instead of a full dump.

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