databutler-uk-exams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool returns links to the board's own pages and deliberately hosts no PDFs because of copyright, which sets correct expectations about the return value.

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 that front-loads the core fact (official past-paper archive links) and uses a parenthetical for the important caveat about copyright and no hosted PDFs. No wasted words.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of filtering behavior, the definition leaves too much unspecified for a tool an agent must parameterize. The link-vs-PDF note helps, but the parameter contract is essentially absent.

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?

Three parameters (board, level, subject) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at 'board' implicitly and says nothing about level or subject, or whether they are free-text filters or how they combine.

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 identifies the resource: links to official past-paper archives on the awarding board's own assessment-resources page. It distinguishes the output from a generic search (links, not hosted PDFs) but never contrasts itself with the sibling tools exam_spec_lookup or exam_topic_paper, and 'per spec' is left unexplained.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the tool for finding past papers versus exam_spec_lookup or exam_topic_paper; nothing in the text routes it.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is disclosing the shape of the returned data (paper counts, durations, marks, calculator rules, tiers) in the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about behavior such as coverage of exam boards, fallback when a board/level/subject combination is unknown, or result size.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the payload breakdown. It is efficient, though the fragment style omits any action verb.

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 usefully enumerates the returned metadata fields, which is the strongest part of the definition. It is nonetheless incomplete for a zero-required-parameter lookup: no accepted parameter values and no guidance distinguishing it from its two siblings.

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% for all three parameters (board, level, subject), so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate at all. It never mentions the parameters, accepted values (e.g., 'AQA', 'GCSE', 'Higher'), casing, or what happens if one is omitted when zero parameters are required.

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 identifies the resource clearly ('UK exam specification metadata') and enumerates the payload (spec codes, paper structure, topic lists, links), so an agent knows what data it retrieves. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from the sibling tools exam_paper_index and exam_topic_paper, leaving the boundary between them to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus exam_paper_index or exam_topic_paper, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The only implied usage comes from the word 'specification' in the content list.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses known data quirks (AQA Combined Science Trilogy Physics Paper 2 has no Space physics) and an explicit board/subject coverage boundary, which an agent needs to avoid over-trusting results.

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 core answer is front-loaded as a one-line question, then the return shape, then the coverage list. Every sentence earns its place except the coverage enumeration, which is dense but genuinely useful for scoping. Slightly long, but no filler.

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 compensates by naming exactly what is returned (paper, sibling topics, spec code, official spec URL) and disclosing board/subject coverage limits. For a 4-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is nearly complete; only ambiguity handling (e.g. unknown topics, wrong-board inputs) is unaddressed.

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 all four parameters carry their own examples in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same fields ("topic plus optional board/subject/level") without adding syntax, casing normalization, or matching behavior (e.g. whether 'aqa' vs 'AQA' matters), so it adds no meaning 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 opens with a concrete question-answer framing ("Which exam paper is a topic on?") and enumerates the returned fields (paper, sibling topics, spec code, spec URL), so the resource and output are unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings exam_paper_index or exam_spec_lookup, whose names suggest overlapping territory (spec codes/URLs), so it stops short of a 5.

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 a canonical call example ("is electricity paper 2 AQA?" → no, Paper 1) and states the input shape (topic plus optional board/subject/level), which makes the usage context clear. The explicit coverage list also tells the agent when the tool applies and when it will not. No alternative tool or exclusion condition is named, but the context is otherwise clear.

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