get_rollup

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 does add a genuinely useful interpretive guard — shared fixes are not a ranking of agencies — which prevents a likely misreading of the output, but it says nothing about permissions, whether results are cached/live, or the shape of the response.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by one clarifying caveat. Nothing is redundant and the second sentence earns its place by heading off misinterpretation.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the needed work by previewing the three returned sections. It is adequate for a simple single-record read, though a hint about what 'rollup_id' scopes (which cohort/program) would make it airtight.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single rollup_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example ('california'), so the description cannot add much. It correctly conveys that the tool operates on one rollup, matching the parameter's intent, which is the expected 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 resource (a single program rollup) and enumerates its payload: shared fixes, grade distribution, and members needing attention. This distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like national_stats or coverage_stats, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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 phrasing 'One program rollup' implies singular retrieval keyed by rollup_id, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing versus get_scorecard, national_stats, or coverage_stats. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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