INMAR business knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints beyond annotations: only public INMAR records are accessible, IDs must come from search, and arbitrary URLs/private data/file access are prohibited. This helps the agent understand the tool's boundaries 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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the core action and source of the id, followed by a concise set of exclusions. Every word earns its place with no 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 one-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it states what to read, where the id comes from, and what is explicitly out of scope. No output schema exists, but 'Read a record' sufficiently implies the return value for this simple 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It does so by clarifying that the single 'id' parameter must be a public INMAR record id returned from search. This adds meaningful provenance information beyond the raw schema definition.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('public INMAR record'), and a precise input source ('by id returned from search'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool 'search' by indicating this tool reads one record by id rather than searching.

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 tells the agent to use IDs returned from search, and explicitly excludes arbitrary URLs, private data, and file access. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name 'search' as the alternative or state a formal when-not-to-use rule.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds a behavioral constraint (limit of five results) and a workflow pointer, which are useful beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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 exactly two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the result limit and the next-step pointer. Every word 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 simple one-parameter tool with safety covered by annotations, the description gives enough to act: search, get up to five sources, then fetch for details. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify what a 'source' looks like (e.g., IDs, URLs), but given the follow-up fetch, this is acceptable.

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 by explaining the 'query' parameter. It does not explicitly mention it; the purpose statement implies that the query is the search term, but no format, examples, or additional guidance are provided. This is a clear gap.

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 ('public INMAR services, prices and knowledge'), which is clear and unambiguous. It also differentiates from the sibling 'fetch' by explicitly naming it as the next step, so an agent can distinguish the two tools without opening schemas.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Returns up to five sources; then use fetch for details and conditions.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (initial search) and when to switch to the sibling (for details), leaving no ambiguity about the intended sequence.

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