Read a published sci-bot answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a fetch, requires no authentication, returns a persistent artifact rather than a transient ticket, and includes the bibliography. It does not cover failure modes or explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'Fetches' makes the primary behavior clear.

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 concise sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the additional context about auth and durability earning its place. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately identifies the input, the returned artifact (finished answer plus bibliography), and the access/persistence caveats. A brief note on response shape or error behavior would make it fully complete, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter with a concrete example, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description's 'by handle' merely restates the schema and adds no new semantic detail, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Fetches'), a precise resource ('finished answer and its bibliography'), and a key selector ('by handle'). The 'unlike a ticket' clause further distinguishes this from transient ticket-based flows, making it clear this is the persistent-answer reader.

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 phrase 'finished answer' communicates when the tool applies, and 'Works without an account and survives a restart... unlike a ticket' gives clear context for preferring this over ticket-based reads. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as scibot_check_question, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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