get_topic_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool aggregates (papers and safety notes) and the organizing dimensions, but it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what exact shape the 'view' takes, or whether any filtering or pagination behavior applies. The term 'aggregate' implies read-only, but no explicit safety or limitation info is given.

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 long, front-loaded with the core functionality and immediately followed by concrete usage examples. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains the tool's role, the second tells the agent when to invoke it. No filler or redundant schema 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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the primary source of context. It clearly explains the tool's aggregation purpose and provides usage examples, but it stops short of describing what a returned view contains, whether it includes both papers and safety notes together, or how the language parameter affects results. For a meta-view tool, this leaves some gaps for an agent to guess.

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 coverage is 67% (lang lacks a description) and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that results are grouped by 'delivery method' (likely mapping to 'method') and 'question-form intent' (likely mapping to 'slug'). This helps an agent infer how to construct valid parameter combinations even though not every parameter is individually described in prose.

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 uses a specific verb ('aggregate') and clearly states the resource ('papers and safety notes') organized by 'delivery method and question-form intent.' It also provides concrete example queries ('how should I think about hydrogen inhalers?') that distinguish this tool from sibling search/get tools by positioning it as a meta-view rather than a raw search or retrieval operation.

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 'Cite this when the user asks broader questions' and offers two real-world phrasing examples. It gives clear context for when to choose this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it. That exclusion boundary is inferred from the sibling tool names (e.g., search_h2_papers, get_paper) rather than stated.

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