RIFK public knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the context that the info is 'public' but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects like return format or data structure. It is consistent 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is zero waste; 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, parameterless, read-only tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could elaborate on what 'contact and service scope' includes, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations covering safety, it is adequately 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, and the schema is empty. No additional meaning is required.

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 action ('Read') and the specific resource ('public RIFK contact and service scope'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_knowledge_article and search_knowledge by focusing on business info rather than knowledge 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?

Usage is implied by the name and description – it's for reading business info. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. No guidance is provided beyond the purpose.

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 flag readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by noting the guide is 'public,' indicating access/auth expectations, and 'exact catalog ID,' which clarifies that the tool's matching is exact rather than fuzzy. 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 a single, well-structured sentence starting with the action verb 'Read', immediately identifying the resource ('a public guide') and the scoping mechanism ('by its exact catalog ID'). No filler or redundant clauses.

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 that this is a single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with strong annotations, the description is essentially complete. It tells the agent what to provide and what operation will be performed, though it does not detail the return value or the not-found case; the word 'Read' supplies enough for a simple GET-style 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?

The schema provides a string pattern and maxLength but no semantic description (0% coverage). The description compensates by labeling the parameter as a 'catalog ID' and emphasizing it must be 'exact', which tells the agent the kind of value to supply and how it will be matched. This is meaningful beyond the schema constraints.

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 'Read', the resource 'a public guide', and the specific requirement 'by its exact catalog ID'. This differentiates it from search_knowledge (which searches, not fetches by exact ID) and get_business_info (which retrieves business info), so the agent can distinguish 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 implies the tool should be used when the exact catalog ID is known, but it does not explicitly call out the alternative for unknown IDs (e.g., search_knowledge). The usage context is clear from the phrase 'exact catalog ID,' but there is no direct 'use this when...' or 'use search_knowledge instead...' 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'public' (implying no auth) and 'not personal tax advice' (a content limitation), which provides some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, result format, or rate limits, but the bar is lowered due to existing 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 short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a relevant caveat. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero schema coverage and absent output schema, the description should explain what results look like and how to craft queries. It only says 'Search public RIFK preparation guides,' which is insufficient for a tool with two undocumented parameters. The absence of return-value information and parameter guidance leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, placing the full burden on the description. The description does not explain the meaning of 'query' or 'limit', nor how they interact. An agent cannot infer expected query syntax or the effect of limit beyond the schema's constraints. This is a significant 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 and resource: 'Search public RIFK preparation guides.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business_info (business info) and get_knowledge_article (single article retrieval). The added clarification 'General information, not personal tax advice' further scopes its purpose.

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 when searching RIFK guides, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when search_knowledge is preferred over get_knowledge_article. This is adequate but lacks formal guidance.

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