copyright01

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

Annotations are empty, so description carries full burden. Mentions return value ('Returns the deposit details with certificate verification code'), which is helpful given no output schema. However, for a creation/mutation operation, fails to disclose side effects, permanence, or safety considerations.

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?

Four well-structured sentences: purpose, supported types, conditional parameter logic, and return value. Front-loaded with action. Minor verbosity possible but 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?

With 6 parameters and 100% schema coverage, description appropriately compensates for missing output schema by describing return values. Covers the copyright deposit domain and type variants sufficiently. Could mention authentication requirements given empty annotations.

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 has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds valuable semantic relationship: the conditional logic that content_text and website_url are mutually exclusive based on type. This inter-parameter dependency is not obvious from schema alone.

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?

Specific verb 'Create' + specific resource 'copyright deposit' + domain context. Clearly distinguishes from siblings get-deposit-tool (retrieval) and list-deposits-tool (listing) by stating it creates a new entity.

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 helps the agent select correct parameters. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to use verify-certificate-tool vs this), preventing 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?

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the authorization boundary (IDOR-protected, user-scoped), but omits other behavioral traits: read-only safety confirmation, error conditions (404 vs 403), or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the operation; second sentence provides the critical security context. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and flat structure. Covers the essential security model but leaves gaps in behavioral disclosure (error handling) and sibling differentiation that would help an agent select between this and list-deposits-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?

Schema coverage is 100% with 'id' fully documented. Description references the parameter implicitly ('by its ID') but adds no additional semantic context such as ID source, format constraints, or valid ranges. Baseline 3 applies for high 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?

Clear specific verb 'Get', resource 'deposit', and scope 'specific deposit by its ID'. The mention of 'IDOR-protected' and user ownership clearly distinguishes this from list-deposits-tool (collection vs single resource) and create-deposit-tool (mutation vs retrieval).

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 the important security constraint that it 'Only returns deposits owned by the authenticated user', which guides against unauthorized access attempts. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs list-deposits-tool (e.g., 'use when you have a specific ID').

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Adds useful behavioral context by specifying return fields (plan, credits, storage, deposit count) and implies user-scoped access via 'your profile'. However, omits safety classification (read-only), rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Single efficient sentence with action verb front-loaded ('Get'). Every clause earns its place: main verb, resource definition, and specific field enumeration. No redundant or wasted text.

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 zero-parameter read tool, description adequately compensates for missing output schema by enumerating specific return fields (plan, credits, storage, deposit count). Would benefit from noting data format or structure, but sufficient for tool selection and basic 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?

Zero parameters present, which establishes baseline 4 per scoring rules. Description implicitly confirms no inputs required by not referencing any parameters, focusing entirely on output behavior.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'profile information' and clearly distinguishes from siblings by targeting account-level metadata (plan, credits, storage) rather than deposit operations. Listing specific fields (plan, credits remaining, storage usage, deposit count) provides concrete scope.

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?

Implicitly guides selection by differentiating profile-scoped data from sibling deposit/verification tools through resource naming (profile vs deposit). However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., 'Use to check credits before creating deposits').

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 empty annotations, description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully documents pagination limits ('up to 20 deposits per page'), but omits authentication requirements implied by 'your', error conditions, and the structure/format of returned deposit objects.

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 zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose and capabilities (filtering), second specifies pagination constraints. Purpose is front-loaded, word count is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Sufficient for a read-only list operation: describes resource, filtering scope, and pagination. Minor gap: lacks description of return value structure (no output schema exists to compensate).

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%, providing strong baseline documentation. Description adds value by noting filtering is 'optional' and explicitly connecting pagination behavior to the page parameter, reinforcing semantics without redundancy.

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?

Specific verb 'List' with resource 'copyright deposits' clearly identifies the operation. Plural 'deposits' and mention of pagination effectively distinguish it from sibling get-deposit-tool (single retrieval) and create-deposit-tool (mutation).

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?

Mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' implying how to use parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus get-deposit-tool (list vs single retrieval) or how to handle traversal of large result sets.

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 empty annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses return value ('deposit details') and conditional behavior ('if found'), but omits auth requirements, error handling, and side effects.

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 tightly constructed sentences: purpose statement, return value disclosure, and scope limitations. No redundant words; information density is high.

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?

Appropriately complete for a simple single-parameter tool. Compensates for missing output schema by describing return value ('deposit details'), and clarifies visibility scope despite having no annotations.

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% with clear parameter description and example. Description references 'verification code' but does not add syntax requirements, validation rules, or semantic details beyond what the schema already provides (baseline 3).

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?

Specific verb 'Verify' and resource 'certificate' clearly stated. Distinguishes from deposit-oriented siblings (create/get/list-deposit) by focusing on certificate verification, though relationship to verify-hash-tool (hash vs certificate distinction) could be more 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?

Provides scope guidance ('Works for public deposits and your own private deposits') implying permission boundaries, but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like get-deposit-tool or verify-hash-tool.

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 are empty, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable scope context ('your own deposits and public deposits') and return behavior ('Returns the matching deposit if found'). However, omits critical behavior: what happens when not found (null/empty/error?), read-only nature of operation, and whether this requires specific permissions.

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 efficient sentences with zero fluff. Front-loaded with core action Sentence 1, scope clarification Sentence 2, return value documentation Sentence 3. Each 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 low complexity (1 parameter) and no output schema, description adequately covers return value behavior ('matching deposit if found') and search scope. Minor gap: does not specify 'not found' behavior or explicitly confirm read-only status, which would be helpful given empty annotations.

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% with complete description of 'hash' parameter (64 hex characters). Description repeats 'SHA-256 hash' from schema but adds no additional semantics regarding format, validation, or example values. Baseline 3 appropriate given complete schema self-documents.

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?

Clear specific verb 'Verify' with resource 'SHA-256 hash against deposits'. Distinguishes from verify-certificate-tool (different target) and get-deposit-tool (likely ID-based) by specifying hash-based verification scope covering 'all 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings (e.g., when to use this instead of get-deposit-tool or list-deposits-tool). No mention of prerequisites or conditions where verification would fail beyond 'if found' implication.

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