evaluate_reusability

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool evaluates reusability and returns a dict, but does not disclose if it is read-only, requires authentication, or handles errors (e.g., missing record). No side effects mentioned.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, bullet-pointed grading aspects, and parameter documentation. It is concise but could be slightly shorter without losing meaning.

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 input and return structure but lacks details on error handling, score calculation, or what constitutes good reusability. For a tool with minimal schema and no output schema, it omits some necessary context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'The Zenodo record ID' for record_id, providing context beyond the schema's title. This is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 evaluates and scores a Zenodo record's reusability, listing specific aspects graded (license quality, metadata completeness, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_license which focus on a single aspect.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like generate_data_card or inspect_license. The description implies use for reusability evaluation but does not provide conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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