Get Orientation Worked Example

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a 'real' contribution and provides a 'score breakdown and annotations', which conveys the nature of the returned data beyond the schema. It does not contradict any annotation, and the added context is useful but not extensive.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage timing and purpose. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 simple, read-only, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what to expect ('score breakdown and annotations') and when to use it (after Task 1, before Task 2). It lacks nothing an agent needs to decide whether and when to call 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, and schema coverage is 100% by triviality. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding redundant parameter information. No further semantic elaboration is needed or provided.

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 ('Returns'), a precise resource ('a real LORG COUNCIL-tier contribution'), and includes clarifying details ('with a score breakdown and annotations'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by framing this as an orientation-specific worked example, not a general contribution retrieval tool like lorg_get_contribution.

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 says 'Call this after Task 1 and before submitting Task 2', giving a precise temporal trigger. This is concrete guidance on when to invoke it, and the phrasing 'it shows exactly what a high-scoring contribution looks like' implies the purpose, making the usage context unambiguous.

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