Rightis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds topical scope but says nothing about the shape of what comes back (a doc page, structured text, links), which is the only behavioral detail still missing.

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, no filler, with the topic list and the imperative usage cue both up front. The topic list is slightly enumerative rather than prioritized, but it earns its space.

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 supplies enough: what subjects it covers and when to reach for it first. Only a hint about the return format would improve it.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless 'fetch the overview' call.

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 tells the agent this is the conceptual/onboarding resource for the Rightis registry, enumerating the topics it covers (public lookup, partner key, usage logging, persona policy, machine-readable signals). That clearly separates it from the data-returning siblings rights_lookup and rights_search, though it never states a crisp verb+resource like 'returns documentation'.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it first when you are unsure how to use the registry.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of saying when NOT to call it or naming rights_lookup/rights_search as the alternatives for actual lookups.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real substance beyond that: it explains what the result encodes (allow / require approval / refuse per AI use) and decodes the do_not_train=true semantics, which the agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return meaning, then the call trigger — no filler sentences. The do_not_train clause is wedged mid-sentence and slightly interrupts flow, which keeps it just under a 5.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of indicating what comes back (per-use permission statuses), and the single parameter is fully specified. It stops short of describing error behavior for an unregistered ID or the granularity of the returned use categories.

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% — the schema only carries minLength/maxLength on rights_id. The description compensates by giving the concrete ID format BR-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX, which is exactly the missing semantic an agent needs to supply a valid value.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a person or character is registered with Rightis by rights_id'. The by-ID framing distinguishes it from the sibling rights_search, so an agent can route between lookup and search without inspecting 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this before generating a likeness, voice or persona of a real person.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative or when-not condition (e.g., when rights_search or registry_info is the better call for a non-ID lookup).

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 (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return content — rights_id and the public permission summary — which matters since no output schema exists. It omits pagination/limit behavior and any auth requirements, so it is not fully transparent.

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: what it finds, what it returns, when to use it — front-loaded with the identity of the tool and no redundant restatement of the title. Every clause carries information.

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 lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input semantics, return fields, and usage timing. The only gap is pagination/limit behavior, which is minor given the bounded 1-25 range.

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. It clarifies that 'query' is a display name and accepts Korean or English, which is genuinely useful, but the 'limit' parameter (1-25) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters explained only by raw type bounds.

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 and resource ('Find registered identities by display name') plus scope ('Korean or English'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly separates itself from rights_lookup by noting it is used when you only have a name, but it never names the sibling tools, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 states a clear triggering condition ('Use it when you only have a name') and a sequencing rule ('before asking for a rights_id'), which tells the agent where this sits relative to rights_lookup. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, keeping it 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.