ifadiscovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds beyond them by specifying the output shape: full text of exactly one article, selected by slug. This is appropriate for a low-risk read operation, though it does not cover not-found behavior or content formatting.

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 sentence states the action, resource, selector, and purpose without filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every phrase 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 one-parameter read-only tool with a 100%-covered schema, the description is complete: it names the input (slug), the retrieval behavior (returns full text), and the domain purpose. No output schema exists, but 'full text' adequately describes the return value, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 explains slug as 'Article slug, as returned by list_blog_articles.' The description only repeats 'by slug' without adding format, provenance, or edge-case details, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic 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?

The description specifies a precise action ('Returns the full text'), a concrete resource ('one Ifá Discovery article'), and the key selector ('by slug'), while also stating the intended use case ('detailed, accurate answers on a specific Yorùbá cosmology topic'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_blog_articles, which would return catalogue entries rather than full article content.

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 gives clear context: call this when you need the full text of a specific article already identified by slug. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use it, but the 'by slug' qualifier and the contrast implied by 'one' article make the usage situation evident.

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?

The annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: live pricing rather than cached or remembered figures, individually generated reports rather than templates, and explicit non-divination boundary. This helps the agent set accurate user expectations and avoids misleading claims.

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 front-loaded with the overall purpose, then adds service context, behavioral caveats, pricing freshness, and usage triggers. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, how the service works, key boundaries, pricing freshness, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 and the schema is empty, so there are no parameters to clarify. The description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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: it 'Returns full details of the Ifá Discovery personal discovery report' and enumerates exactly what is covered (contents, price, delivery, intake, gifting/redeeming, inclusions/exclusions). This clearly distinguishes it from the blog-article sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use when someone asks about Yorùbá cosmology orientation, Orisha energies, Egbe, gifting a reading, or how to begin exploring Ifá tradition.' It also states service boundaries ('It is not divination and does not replace consultation with a qualified Babalawo or Iyanifa'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as getting a blog article, so it falls just 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the main behavioral safety profile. The description adds contextual value about content quality and subject matter but does not describe result format, pagination, or other runtime behavior. 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second provides a meaningful usage directive. Every sentence 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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. It could mention what the returned list contains, but the subject scope and use case are clearly conveyed.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description need not elaborate on inputs, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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: it lists Ifá Discovery's published articles on Yorùbá cosmology and Ifá tradition. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_blog_article, which retrieves a single article, and get_offering, which is unrelated.

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 gives explicit usage context: use it to find accurate, respectfully written explanations of Yorùbá spiritual concepts before relying on general knowledge. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended trigger is clear.

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