get_axis

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the disclosure burden and does it well: it defines the unmeasured-axis case as a first-class answer rather than an error or zero, and adds the 'never a certification' constraint. It does not discuss read-only guarantees, auth, or rate limits, but those are less critical for a simple live board lookup.

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?

Two sentences carry the full definition: the first locates the resource and enumerates the reply fields; the second resolves a likely misinterpretation around unmeasured axes. Every word contributes.

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 enumerates all output fields (n, accuracy, interval, status, family, dates) and clarifies edge semantics, while the schema fully documents the input and error fallback. For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, nothing essential is missing.

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 covers the sole parameter at 100%, including an example, case-insensitivity, and the unknown-name fallback. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the field list, so per the coverage rule it stays at baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one axis row from the live GSPC board'), lists the returned fields, and explicitly distinguishes the result from a certification. This is enough for an agent to tell it apart from list_cards and verify_card.

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?

Clarifies the target is a single row on the public board, which implies use for per-axis lookups, and the schema notes unknown names return the board's actual list. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools or states when another tool should be used instead, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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