sch_get

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation 'openWorldHint: true'. It does not disclose any aspects such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has authentication needs. The description carries the full burden but fails to deliver.

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 very short, but this is due to under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a single sentence that provides no useful information. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by being informative.

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 complexity (three parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it differs from its alias sch.get, or any behavioral details needed for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for three parameters (doi, arxivId, url), the description should compensate but adds nothing. It does not explain what each parameter represents or how they are used, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.

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 'Alias of sch.get' does not state what the tool does; it merely indicates it is an alias, providing no verb or resource information. This is a tautology as it only references another tool name without explaining its purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sch.get or other siblings. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or specific scenarios.

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