Get Study

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behaviors. The description adds value by explaining that question and context fields are descriptive intent, not enforced instructions, and that a concurrency version is included. This goes beyond annotations but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 highly concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action ('Read a study') followed by a useful clarification. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

With an output schema present and low complexity (single parameter), the description covers the primary purpose and a nuance. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not specify what the optimistic concurrency version is used for, leaving some gaps in agent comprehension.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the study_id parameter, though it is implied by 'read a study'. Since the parameter is a simple ID, this is a minor gap, but the description should compensate given the low coverage according to the guidelines.

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 'Read a study' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the detail of returning the optimistic concurrency version. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_study_overview or list_studies, though the focus on reading a single study with a concurrency version implies distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts where this should be preferred over get_study_overview or list_studies, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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