nc_get_mining_titles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is safe or requires permissions. It also does not describe output format, pagination, or any side effects. The description does not contradict any annotations (since there are none), but it fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise at two sentences. However, the second sentence 'NC is the world #1 ferronickel producer' is tangential to the tool's function and adds no operational value. The core information is front-loaded, but the extra sentence could be omitted without loss. Overall, it is efficient but not maximally focused.

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?

For a simple query tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values or how to interpret results, but since the schema covers parameters and the tool is straightforward, the description is not severely incomplete. Still, it lacks context about what the data represents beyond the parenthetical examples.

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 documents all three parameters with descriptions and enum values, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters—it just names the resource. Since the schema covers everything, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get mining titles (concessions, research permits) in New Caledonia.' It specifies the resource (mining titles) and geographic scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover holidays, companies, or weather. The verb 'Get' and the resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, filtering conditions, or when a different tool might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description, which is minimal.

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