get_lineage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns' the lineage, indicating a read-only operation, and describes the content returned. It does not elaborate on the language parameter or potential variations, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the main return value, and every word adds value. There is no padding or repetition.

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 simple 1-parameter read-only tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it omits any mention of the 'lang' parameter or response structure, which are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides no information about the single 'lang' parameter, its enum values, or how it affects the output. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's bare minimum, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter semantics.

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 returns a specific resource: the four-paper inhalation safety threshold lineage, with details on the 11-year academic record and its supporting conclusions. This specific verb+resource formulation distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_paper and search_h2_papers.

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 says 'Use when the user asks for the academic basis of the safety guidance', providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full 5.

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