query_standard

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns matching clauses with text snippets, token range (~500-2000), and behavior when standard is not found (returns available IDs). It distinguishes behavior between public profiles and purchased standards, though does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention auth/rate limits.

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 four sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with purpose, then explains distinctions, return behavior, and prerequisite. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 search tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter context, return format, token size, and error handling. Minor gap: pagination or how limit parameter affects results not explicitly described, but adequate overall.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: it explains the two types of standards for the 'standard' parameter, describes the return structure for 'query', and mentions the token range for output, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 within bundled public framework profiles or purchased standards by keyword, distinguishing between two content types. It specifies it returns matching clauses with text snippets and describes fallback behavior, differentiating from sibling tools like search_controls or get_clause.

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 explicitly advises using list_available_standards before calling, providing a clear prerequisite. It implies usage context by explaining what it searches (public vs purchased) and what it returns, but does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives.

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