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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default format, the two output behaviors (yaml verbatim text vs. json parsed), and the access constraint of approved topics and loaded dimensions. It does not explicitly state side effects, but as a read-style retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by format behavior and the availability constraint. Each 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?

The description covers the main selection criteria and format behavior, and an output schema exists so return-structure details are not required. However, the main_topic parameter is not explained, and the relationship between name/kind/main_topic is left ambiguous, making the definition incomplete for fully confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains fmt and kind, and implicitly ties name to the topic or dimension, but main_topic is entirely unmentioned. With four parameters, missing one key semantic is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 returns the authoritative ODCS v3.1 data contract for a topic or dimension, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes the tool's purpose from schema-exploration siblings by framing it as a way to consume the machine-readable schema without cloning the repo.

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: use this to get the machine-readable contract for a topic/dimension, and only approved topics/loaded dimensions expose one. It also implies the alternative of cloning the repo. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is clear.

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