Explain an IMD error code

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the output is explanatory (what happened + what to do) and that the operation is free, which is marginally useful, but omits whether it requires auth, whether it's read-only, and what the return format looks like.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. The purpose leads and the cost note is brief.

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 explanatory tool, the description is minimal. With no annotations or output schema, the agent still lacks clarity on whether the tool is safe to call, what the response contains, and how it differs from siblings like imd_check.

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?

Only one parameter ('code') with 0% schema description coverage. The description implicitly defines the input as an IMD error code but provides no format or syntax details beyond that. Baseline with 0 params would be 4, but here the single parameter is undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: turns an IMD error code into an explanation ('what happened and what to do'). Clear and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from imd_check or imd_status, which also relate to IMD state.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like imd_check. The 'Free' note hints at cost, but not usage context or prerequisites.

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