Oracle — Skyline Certified Roofing & Insurance Records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read operation with no side effects, but it does not explain what happens when the record is missing or not certified, what the response contains, or whether any access requirements apply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the resource, the operation, the key qualifier, and the parameter in an efficient way.

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 tool this is minimally viable: an agent with a record_id can likely invoke it. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the return shape, the meaning of 'certified', and error/not-found behavior, leaving important context to inference.

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 has only record_id as a required string with 0% description coverage, and the description merely restates record_id without adding format, length, source, or constraints. The purpose of the parameter is inferable, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: retrieve one certified record by its record_id. The 'single ... by its record_id' phrasing helps distinguish it from search_records (multi-result search) and get_record_history (history of changes), even without naming them explicitly.

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: use this tool when you already have a record_id and need the single record. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_records or get_record_history, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback behavior.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is ordered oldest first and includes both superseding and superseded records, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the tool is read-only (safe to call), pagination limits, or error conditions (e.g., record not found). Since it's a read operation, the absence of a readOnlyHint is a minor gap, but the description adds some value by clarifying the lineage scope.

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 both concise and information-dense. It front-loads the core action ('Get the full revision lineage') and adds key details (supersedes/superseded, ordered oldest first) without any fluff. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (lineage), ordering, and scope. It lacks explicit usage guidance and safety information, but for a read-only history tool, those are minor. The absence of an output schema means the description could have mentioned the return structure (e.g., list of record objects), but the core information needed to call it is present.

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 has only one parameter, record_id, which is required. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no description for the parameter. The description does not elaborate on the parameter format (e.g., UUID, string length) or its semantics beyond the name. With one parameter, the burden is low, but some added context (e.g., 'the record whose history to retrieve') would be helpful. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory, a 3 is appropriate.

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: to retrieve the complete revision lineage of a record, including superseding and superseded records, ordered oldest first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record (which presumably fetches a single record) and list_changes_since (which lists changes over time). The specific verb 'get' and resource 'record history' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving revision history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. It hints at a specific use case (history/lineage) but does not name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. For example, it could mention 'for a flat list of changes, use list_changes_since.' Thus, usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what kinds of changes are returned, implies incremental polling rather than a full snapshot, and even states the underlying refresh cadence ('re-checked weekly (Sundays, 00:00 UTC)'). It omits pagination and error behavior, but the disclosed behavior meaningfully exceeds a generic 'lists changes' statement.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and usage context are front-loaded, followed by concrete result categories and a useful freshness detail. Every clause 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It covers the core inputs and result categories, but the three undocumented optional parameters, plus the absence of any mention of result limits, ordering, or pagination, leave notable gaps for a tool that returns a set of changes.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It clarifies the `since` parameter's intended use ('changed since a given date/time') but provides no meaning for `state`, `topic`, or `subject`, leaving three optional parameters functionally unexplained.

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 names a specific operation, 'Poll for what's changed since a given date/time', and a resource ('records'), then enumerates the exact returned categories: newly certified records, superseded pairs, and reconfirmed records. It also contrasts itself with 're-pulling the whole dataset', which helps distinguish it from the sibling lookup/search 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?

It clearly frames when to use this tool: when you need to detect changes since a timestamp rather than re-fetching everything. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent's choice.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add meaningful scope context ('certified human-reviewed' records) and query flexibility ('all params optional and combinable'), but it does not disclose result format, pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or whether an empty query returns all records. These are important operational traits for a search tool.

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 core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a useful usage note in the second. 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?

This is a 9-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must make it safely invocable. It fails to explain most parameter semantics, expected return values, or how it differs functionally from sibling tools, leaving an agent to guess at critical call details.

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 only 11%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the many undocumented parameters (tag, topic, status, carrier, subject, limit, offset). It does not; it only says all params are optional and combinable, which is useful but leaves the meaning and intended use of most parameters ambiguous.

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 a precise resource ('Skyline's certified (human-reviewed) Oklahoma property-insurance and roofing records'), so an agent knows what domain is covered. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_record or list_changes_since, but the operation and resource are clear enough to avoid major confusion.

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 phrase 'All params optional and combinable' gives useful guidance on how broad or narrow a query can be alerting the agent that any subset of filters is valid. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over get_record, get_record_history, or list_changes_since; the distinction is only implied by the search operation and sibling names.

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