Get a Library indicator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the tool returns details about what the indicator does, how to read it, family, concept links, preview image, and source code availability. This is a good behavioral outline, though it doesn't mention error handling or not-found behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise detail and usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context by enumerating typical return content and a usage directive. It could be more explicit about edge cases, but completeness is strong for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single 'slug' parameter already well-described via its own schema description and example. The tool description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Details for one indicator', a specific verb+resource combo that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a single indicator and explicitly names library_get_source_code for code retrieval, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when the user asks about a specific indicator.' It also points to an alternative tool (library_get_source_code) for fetching source code, effectively differentiating when not to use this tool.

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