SMI: methodology

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds credit-worthy behavioral context beyond that: the resource is free and requires no API key, which affects how an agent authenticates and budgets. It does not contradict annotations; it only omits output shape and any rate-limit notes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and contents before the call hint. Every clause earns its place; only the parenthetical list of contents makes it slightly dense.

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 read-only, no-required-param tool with a fully documented enum and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the sections and the calling pattern, so an agent can invoke it correctly without further inference.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage plus an enum of all nine section values, the schema does the heavy lifting. "Pass section to get one part" reinforces the semantics without adding format or default details, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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 (get methodology) and enumerates the content actually returned: version, change log, conflicts statement, headline formula, counting rules. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with index-value siblings like smi_get_latest or smi_get_print.

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?

"Free, no key. Pass section to get one part." gives a practical calling hint and cost note, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many smi_/smx_ siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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