Search Standards by Disciplinary Core Idea

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'find all NGSS standards' indicating a read operation, but lacks details on response structure, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds little beyond the purpose.

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 a single clear sentence followed by relevant examples. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element 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 filter tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and provides examples. However, it lacks detail on return format, pagination behavior, or potential limits. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with full descriptions and enums for both parameters. The description provides example DCI values but these duplicate the enum list, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already defines semantics clearly.

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 uses a specific verb 'find' and resource 'NGSS standards' with a clear filtering criterion 'by Disciplinary Core Idea (DCI)'. Examples further clarify the DCI values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_by_crosscutting_concept and search_by_practice.

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 implies use when a specific DCI is known but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like search_by_practice. Without exclusions or context, the usage scope is only implied.

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