quant_describe_method

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral details: it returns an error string for unknown keys, and lists the return fields (name, paper, paper_url, regime_applicability, prose description). No contradiction.

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?

Description is extremely concise: one sentence plus an Args/Returns section. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence adds meaningful information. No fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains the return structure and error behavior. It also cross-references the sibling tool for key discovery. Complete for a read-only lookup tool with clear inputs and outputs.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage per context, the description mentions the key parameters (method_key, response_format) and the return format. It adds value by explaining how to handle errors and what the output contains, compensating for the noted coverage gap.

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?

Description clearly states 'Full detail and citation for one registered method', specifying verb (get detail), resource (method), and scope (one method, with citation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like quant_list_methods (which lists valid keys) and other analysis tools.

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?

Description explicitly advises to call quant_list_methods for valid keys if the key is unknown, providing guidance on error handling and an alternative tool. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (when you have a valid method_key and need full details).

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