corpus_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates the tool is informational ('describe what this server is serving') and explains the significance of the date range for other tools. While it doesn't explicitly state non-destructive behavior, the nature of the description implies a read-only metadata operation.

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 concise, consisting of two well-structured sentences. It avoids redundancy and directly conveys the tool's function and usage hint without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and is a metadata endpoint, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it reports (coverage, model, quality) and why it should be called first. It also connects to the sibling tools by explaining how the date range affects interpretation, making it contextually complete for an agent.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description doesn't need to explain any inputs. The output schema is mentioned but not detailed, which is acceptable given the no-parameter context.

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 tool's purpose: to describe the server's corpus coverage, model, and measured quality. It is specific about the resource and the aspects it covers, making it distinct from the sibling tools that search, find, classify, get, or triage.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool before relying on others, and explains why: it reveals the date range of the corpus, which is essential for interpreting 'no duplicates found' responses. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and context.

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