explain_error

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns an explanation with common causes, solutions, and documentation links, which suggests a read-only lookup. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not mutate anything, or require specific permissions. For a simple explanation tool, this is a minor gap, but more transparency would improve the score.

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 main action, the target resource, and the expected content. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding. This is an ideal length for a tool of this simplicity.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and the schema covers parameter semantics. The only missing piece is an explicit statement about whether the 'errorDescription' parameter is used to tailor the explanation, but this is optional and not critical for correct invocation. Overall, the definition is sufficient for an agent to use it 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the error code in the purpose but does not elaborate on how 'errorDescription' influences the explanation, leaving all parameter semantics to the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a detailed explanation of an AgeKey/OIDC error code'), and mentions the included content (causes, solutions, links). It is distinct from all siblings, which deal with organizations, applications, credentials, JWT decoding, and code samples, so there is no confusion about which tool does what.

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 its usage context (when you have an error code) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. Since no sibling performs a similar function, the implicit guidance is adequate, but it lacks an explicit 'use when' statement.

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