methodology_guide

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint as true. The description adds value beyond those by specifying the explanatory nature of the tool—it conveys knowledge rather than performing data mutations. No contradictions exist, and the description appropriately complements the annotations.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, explanatory role), the description is complete enough. An output schema exists, so return values do not need description. The description adequately covers what the tool does and why an agent would use it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline score is 4 as per instructions. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. Schema coverage is effectively 100% since there are no parameters to document.

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 explains how GHED variables are organized and how to choose the right series. It uses a specific verb 'Explain' and specifies the resource 'GHED variables'. This purpose is distinct from all sibling tools, which do not offer explanatory guidance on variable organization.

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 tells when to use the tool: when needing to understand variable organization and series selection. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage, especially given the unique explanatory role among siblings.

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