kasko_archive_file

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's addition is minimal. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds little behavioral detail beyond stating it 'resolves' a file—no mention of network dependency, file size, or error handling.

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 extremely concise (~50 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a function: stating purpose, explaining context, listing use cases. No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage context, and practical applications. It could mention what happens if the requested month doesn't exist, but openWorldHint reduces the need. Overall, it feels complete for this tool.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (year with example, month with min/max/example). The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, meeting the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 resolves a monthly spreadsheet and provides use cases like citing or comparing. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieving a specific month's file, though the verb 'resolve' is slightly vague compared to 'retrieve' or 'fetch'.

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 explains when to use this tool (to get a file for a given month or compare values) and provides background on TSB's publishing pattern. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to avoid misuse.

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