copyright01

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (create), type-specific input requirements, and the return value (deposit details with certificate verification code). While it doesn't mention auth or side effects, the core behavior is sufficiently transparent for a creation 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause earns its place. It covers supported types, conditional parameters, and return value without any 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: it clarifies the type-dependent parameter selection and states what the agent will receive. It doesn't cover error cases, but that is not necessary for a create 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explicitly linking the 'type' parameter to the required payload field (content_text or website_url), which is more direct than reading each schema description individually.

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 opens with 'Create a new copyright deposit' – a specific verb and resource. It then enumerates supported types, which further clarifies scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-deposit or list-deposits.

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?

Provides clear conditional guidance: 'For text deposits, provide content_text. For other types, provide website_url.' This effectively tells the agent which parameter to use per type. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the creation purpose and distinct sibling names make the usage context clear.

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 is the primary source of behavioral information. It discloses the IDOR protection and the scope to authenticated users, which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe the return format, error behavior, or authentication requirements beyond the implication.

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 that front-load the core purpose and a critical security constraint. It contains no filler, though there is minor leading whitespace.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and ownership restriction. However, the absence of return value details and error handling leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema has full coverage with a description for the single 'id' parameter, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does reinforce the 'by its ID' usage, but no additional semantics are provided.

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 'Get details of a specific deposit by its ID' which clearly identifies a read operation for a single resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-deposits-tool and create-deposit-tool.

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 communicates the key contextual constraint that only the authenticated user's deposits are accessible (IDOR-protected), implying when it's appropriate to call. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like list-deposits-tool for enumeration or clarify scenarios where it should not be used.

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 transparency burden. It reveals the returned data fields and implies a read-only operation via 'get', but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is adequate for a simple getter but not rich.

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 that conveys the essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool does and includes the key output fields. Missing details like units of storage or authentication requirements are minor given the low complexity.

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 explain parameter semantics, and the field list adds value beyond the empty 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 clearly states the action ('Get your profile information') and the specific resource ('profile'), listing the expected fields (plan, credits, storage usage, deposit count). This distinguishes it from the deposit-focused 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 intended usage is implied by the description and sibling context (profile vs. deposits), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the pagination limit (20 per page) and the scope ('your deposits'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any authentication needs or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with key behavior (pagination). Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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, so the description should clarify what is returned. It states deposits are listed and paginated, but does not describe the structure of each deposit or any error cases. For a simple tool, this is adequate but leaves room for more detail.

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 fully documents all three parameters (page, type, status) with descriptions and enumerated values. The description only generically says 'optional filtering and pagination', which adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'your copyright deposits', while also mentioning optional filtering and pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-deposit-tool (single deposit) and create-deposit-tool (creation).

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool ('List your copyright deposits') and implies it is for viewing collections rather than individual items. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the intent is obvious enough.

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 full burden. It discloses the return behavior (deposit details if found) and scope (public/private), but does not state whether it is read-only, what happens on invalid codes, or any authentication requirements. 'Verify' implies non-mutation, but it is not explicit.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return behavior and scope. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, return behavior, and applicable use cases. It lacks mention of not-found handling or error cases, but for a straightforward verification tool, it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'code' well-described including an example format. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond restating 'verification code', so it meets the baseline but adds no further 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 clearly states the tool verifies a certificate by its verification code and returns deposit details. It distinguishes its scope (public and private deposits) from sibling verification tools like verify-hash-tool.

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 use by stating it works for public and own private deposits, but does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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 transparency burden. It discloses the operation's scope and successful return behavior, but does not state what happens when no matching deposit is found, whether the operation is read-only, or any error conditions. This is a partial disclosure, not a contradiction.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main verb and resource, and every sentence adds meaningful information about scope or result.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and happy-path return. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify not-found behavior or the shape of the returned deposit, leaving a mild gap.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter (hash) with format and validation ('64 hex characters'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not add further parameter semantics, which is acceptable at 100% schema coverage.

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 verifies a SHA-256 hash against deposits, with specific scope ('your own deposits and public deposits') and a clear outcome ('Returns the matching deposit if found'). This distinct purpose differentiates it from the sibling verify-certificate-tool and other deposit 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 implies when to use this tool (when needing to verify a deposit hash) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like verify-certificate-tool, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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