ebms_guide

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full safety burden, and it discharges the most important part by declaring 'Read-only' and spelling out all three invocation modes (no args lists skills, skill returns one skill, file returns a reference file). It stops short of noting output size or pagination for the listing mode, which is a minor residual gap for a doc-fetch tool.

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 core instruction and read-only declaration come early and the mode behavior is packed into one sentence. The domain enumeration is slightly long but earns its place by telling the agent what procedures are available before it calls.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to call, what each argument mode returns, and that the operation is read-only. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the dispatch semantics between the two optional parameters and by describing the no-argument default behavior, which the schema cannot express. The example formats themselves live in the schema, not the description.

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 names the resource precisely — the procedural/skill documentation for EBMS through this server — and enumerates the covered domains (sales orders, purchase orders, receiving, products, customers, vendors, MRP, imports, company setup). This makes it unmistakable against action siblings such as ebms_get, ebms_write, and mrp_plan.

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?

It gives an explicit call condition — 'before any task beyond a single read' — plus the exception ('unless the matching skill is already loaded in this app'). That is a concrete when-to-use rule an agent can apply without inference.

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