Fetch Mireye Fields

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

Annotations already declare safe, read-only behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: each field includes its value, source, source URL, fetched_at timestamp, and confidence. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the provenance structure, though it does not cover all edge cases like rate limits.

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 and usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and adds value without redundancy or 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 tool has 4 parameters with 2 required, no enums, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the main purpose, usage context, and return format. It lacks explicit mention of the 'preset' parameter and how it relates to 'fields'. However, the output schema likely covers return values, so completeness is high but not perfect.

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 50% (lat, lng, fields have descriptions; preset only has enum list). The description mentions fetching 'specific data fields' and 'each field includes...', which partly explains the 'fields' parameter, but does not explicitly describe 'lat', 'lng', or 'preset'. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of explanation for some parameters.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'specific data fields at a US coordinate', and adds detail about provenance. It differentiates from the sibling 'mireye_ask' by specifying this tool is for when the caller knows exactly which fields they need.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the caller knows exactly which fields they need...or wants to power a custom workflow.' It provides an example and implies that for less specific needs, the sibling 'mireye_ask' might be more appropriate, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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