describe_szs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so reasonably: 'Return a text description' makes clear this is a pure read with no side effects, and it discloses the shape of the payload (Success vs NoSuccess enumerations with short glosses). It does not describe output format in detail (plain text vs structured), which keeps it below 5.

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?

A single sentence with an embedded URL and a parenthetical list of representative statuses. The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sub-clause (ontology reference, status categories, agent benefit) adds information rather than repeating the name.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain both what it does and roughly what comes back, and it does both by naming the two status categories and giving examples. It only falls short of 5 because it doesn't indicate the output's format or size, which an agent might reasonably want for a describing 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs, and nothing misleading is said about them.

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 verb and resource ('Return a text description of the SZS Ontology') and additionally explains that this is the shared verdict vocabulary used by every other tool. That framing lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_provers or run_prover without opening the schema.

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 implies usage clearly: consult this to interpret verdicts produced by other tools ('so an agent can decide what a verdict means without leaving the MCP session'). It does not name an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-call condition, but for a zero-parameter reference tool there is little ambiguity about when it applies.

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