nc_get_metal_production

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 merely states 'get' without revealing response format, pagination behavior, data source, or any side effects. For a read operation this is minimal, but the absence of any performance or output details leaves the agent underinformed.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it lacks any structural segmentation (e.g., sections or bullets) that could enhance readability for complex tools; for this simple tool, that is acceptable.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what fields or format the returned data will have, how the year and limit interact, or any caveats about data availability. An agent calling this tool would be uncertain about the response structure and how to process the results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's mention of 'nickel, ferronickel' duplicates the product_type examples in the schema. It adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 verb (get), resource (metallurgical production data), and geographic scope (New Caledonia), with examples (nickel, ferronickel). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools, none of which directly overlap in function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, lacking direction on scenarios that might favor another tool.

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