get_state_summary

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 disclosing the tool's behavior. It states what data is returned (totals for systems, branch outlets, collections, usage) but gives no details about output format, error handling, data sources, or any constraints on state_code. This is a minimal disclosure for a read operation with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a straightforward parameter table. Every sentence earns its place, and the format makes the key information easily scannable.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves gaps. It explains what is returned (totals of specific metrics) but does not describe the return value's structure, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. It also doesn't mention any limitations or edge cases, making it complete only at a high level.

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, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does this by defining state_code as a 'Two-letter state abbreviation' with an example ('IL'), which adds crucial meaning beyond the bare type:string in the schema. The single parameter is well-explained, though it doesn't cover case sensitivity or valid values.

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 function: 'Get statewide public library totals' and specifies the exact metrics (systems, branch outlets, collections, and usage) and scope (one state). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_library or get_outlet, which target individual entities.

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 indicates this is for statewide aggregate data, which implicitly tells the agent to use this when needing totals rather than individual library or outlet details. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it doesn't fully distinguish from related search/find tools.

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