get_readers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides meaningful context by describing the inventory as 'derived', specifying its scope as the public evidence corpus, and clarifying what it does not infer. This goes beyond the tool name, though it does not mention read-only guarantees, auth, or return formatting.

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 and each adds information: the first defines the returned inventory and coverage, the second clarifies important limitations. It is somewhat dense with jargon like 'instrument identifiers' and 'model-digest coverage', but it is still appropriately sized and front-loads the core purpose.

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 zero parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does a solid job of explaining what the tool returns and what it deliberately omits. It could be more explicit about the exact return shape, such as whether it is a list of identifier strings, but for a no-argument inventory tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already exhaustively documents parameter requirements. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter-semantic gap for the description to fill.

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 states a specific resource: a derived inventory of exact model-reader, tokenizer, and instrument identifiers in the public evidence corpus. It is clear enough to distinguish get_readers from the broader get_* family, though it does not name a sibling or use an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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 the tool is for retrieving exact instrument identifiers and explicitly says it does not infer model families, training-data exposure, ownership, or independence. This gives some when-not-to-use guidance, but it does not state explicit use cases or point to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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