deawatch

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 that the output is CSV text, which is important behavioral information (text string vs. structured object). It also clarifies that it exports the full report, implying no filtering. It does not mention performance or permission requirements, but for a read-only export operation this is acceptable.

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 that states the action, scope, output format, and included fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (CSV text) and what data it covers (prescriber, registration, expiry, status, reminder history). This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description also adds context about the output, which helps compensate for the absence of parameter documentation.

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 function: 'Export the full controlled substance registration report as CSV text.' It specifies the verb (Export), the resource (full controlled substance registration report), and the output format (CSV text). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_authority_summary (summary), get_registrations_expiring (filtered), and search_registrations (search).

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 context by specifying 'full report' and 'CSV text', indicating this is for bulk export rather than filtered/summary views. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation, and the description details what data is returned. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, permission requirements, or any other behavioral constraints, though this is acceptable for a simple getter.

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, efficiently structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('Get'), specifies the resource, and lists the output categories in a clear, ordered list without any 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?

Given the zero-parameter signature and absence of an output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns by naming all the summary categories. It could mention the response format, but the level of detail is sufficient for a summary 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation needed. The description focuses appropriately on the output, and with 100% schema coverage of an empty schema, the baseline of 4 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 retrieves a controlled substance authority summary and enumerates the specific totals included (tracked registrations, renewals not started, expired, due in 30 days, awaiting issue). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_registrations or get_registrations_expiring.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not reference sibling tools, mention prerequisites, or explain when this summary would be preferred over more specific tools like get_registrations_expiring or export_registration_report.

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 adds useful context such as the default window and the types of registrations included, but it does not disclose potential behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, pagination, sorting, or any side effects. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but this 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information (what it lists and the default window). No unnecessary words 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is fairly complete. It states the resource, the scope, and the default value. However, it does not explain the output format, and there is no output schema to compensate, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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 already describes the 'days' parameter as 'Look-ahead window in days (default 90)' with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'within the next N days (default 90)' reinforces this but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists controlled substance registrations expiring within a specified number of days, with a default of 90 days. It also specifies the scope (state CSRs and mid-level registrations), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like search_registrations or export_registration_report.

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 for checking upcoming expirations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_registrations or export_registration_report. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate.

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 full burden. It explicitly describes the inclusion criteria (expired DEA or state license) and the current legal status, adding meaningful context beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'List' implies it, and no side effects are hinted.

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 starts with the verb 'List' and the resource, and adds a clarifying em-dash phrase. Every word earns its place, with no filler 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description is complete enough: it defines the exact population and the reason. It does not specify the output format, which could be a minor gap since no output schema exists, but the tool's simplicity makes it likely obvious.

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, and the schema is empty. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 lists prescribers whose DEA registration or state controlled substance license has expired, specifying the exact condition and the practical implication (cannot legally prescribe). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_registrations_expiring, which presumably focuses on upcoming expirations.

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 the tool (when you need to identify prescribers currently unable to prescribe due to expired licenses) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, so guidance is only implicit.

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool returns matching records with expiry date and status, which is helpful. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only (though 'search' implies it), nor does it describe sorting, pagination, or any limitations. The behavior is mostly straightforward, but the description adds only modest context beyond the obvious.

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 packs in the core purpose, search criteria, and return fields. It wastes no words and is immediately understandable, correctly front-loading the verb 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?

For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what it searches, the criteria, and what it returns. It does not explain the return format in detail, but the declared fields (expiry date and status) are likely sufficient for an agent. The lack of annotations is partly compensated by the clarity of the search behavior, though a note on read-only safety would improve completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'query', including its case-insensitive nature and shorthand support. The description adds semantic value by specifying that the search can be by prescriber name, registration type, or location—details not fully explicit in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline expected for full 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 searches controlled substance registrations, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('controlled substance registrations'). It also mentions the search dimensions (prescriber name, registration type, or location) and output fields (expiry date and status), which distinguishes it from siblings like export_registration_report or get_registrations_expiring.

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 general searching of registrations, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives like get_registrations_expiring or get_authority_summary. The sibling tool names suggest distinct purposes, but the description lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative references.

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