SCA Zandomeni — Timișoara

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the concrete return payload (title, description, canonical URL, article text), which is behavioral detail beyond what the annotations provide. No contradiction exists, and the added return fields help the agent anticipate the output format.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and identifying criterion, and ends with the return fields. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—two parameters, one required, no output schema—the description covers the core purpose, the return payload, and the lookup mechanism. The annotations provide the read-only and idempotent context, and the sibling tools clarify the information landscape, so the description is complete enough for a single-fetch 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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both slug and maxChars with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'by slug' merely restates what the schema already specifies, and it does not add any additional meaning or constraints for the parameters. Therefore the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' to identify the action, specifies the resource as a 'single SCA Zandomeni blog article', and adds the key criterion 'by slug'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_blog_posts, which would be used for discovery rather than 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 implies that the tool is used when a slug is already known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_blog_posts. The guidance is implied by the 'by slug' phrase rather than explicitly stated, so it falls short of clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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 idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating that the details are 'public', which is useful but does not disclose additional traits like data freshness or authentication needs. It does not contradict 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Return'), and contains no filler. Every word adds value, precisely naming the entity and the expected data 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 read-only contact info tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool returns and for which entity. The annotations cover safety, and the description leaves no critical gaps in understanding.

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, so the input schema is trivial and the description does not need to explain any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately makes no parameter claims. It adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 'Return' with a specific resource ('public contact details of SCA Zandomeni — Timișoara') and enumerates the fields (phone, email, website, service area). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools that handle blog posts or expertise areas.

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: use this tool when you need contact details for SCA Zandomeni. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself does not offer direct 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 declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the response includes links to each area page, but it doesn't disclose ordering, pagination, or other potential behaviors. This is adequate but not extensive.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with 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 no-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the resource (practice areas of SCA Zandomeni) and the output format (links), making the tool's behavior clear.

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, so there is no schema to document. The description compensates by specifying that the output is a list of practice areas with links, fully conveying what to expect.

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 'List the practice areas covered by SCA Zandomeni (Timișoara) with links to each area page,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_blog_post and search_blog_posts, which handle different content types.

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 for retrieving practice areas but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. Since sibling tools cover unrelated resources (blog posts, contact info), the context is clear without the need for exclusions.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context that the blog has ~550 Romanian articles and that matching is against slugs, returning URLs. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the scope and output format, without contradicting them.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes relevant specifics (blog, article count, language, slug matching, output) with no filler or 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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: what it searches (blog posts), how (by slug), and what it returns (URLs). It could optionally mention result ordering or the absence of content snippets, but the given information is sufficient for an agent to 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 schema already describes the 'query' parameter with 'Keyword(s) to match in the article slug/URL (Romanian, no diacritics).' The description echoes this by mentioning 'keyword against article slugs' but adds no new meaning. The 'limit' parameter is only documented via its schema (type, default, min, max), with no descriptive text. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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's purpose: 'Search the SCA Zandomeni legal blog (~550 articles, Romanian) by keyword against article slugs.' It specifies the exact resource (blog posts on zandomeni.eu), the search mechanism (slugs), and the output (URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blog_post, which likely retrieves individual posts, and list_expertise_areas.

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 finding blog posts by keyword, which is clear from the phrase 'Search the SCA Zandomeni legal blog.' It provides context about the blog's language and size, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools. However, the intent is evident, and the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable given the distinct purpose.

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