get_calibration_observations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Read' does signal a non-mutating operation and the mention of stale evidence and contradictory reports hints at analytical value in the results. It says nothing about permissions, freshness thresholds, or scope of the records, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the second clause adds useful intent. It is compact to the point of leaving gaps, but those gaps are coverage issues rather than wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one parameter. Against that low complexity bar the description is only adequate: the unexplained 'definition' parameter and absence of any routing guidance versus siblings leave real holes.

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 single required parameter is a bare string named 'definition' with 0% schema description coverage. The description says the checks are 'for a part', which hints at the value's meaning but never resolves whether 'definition' is a part ID, a name, or a definition document, leaving the most important input ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (recorded in-game checks for a part), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_part_definition or query_parts. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, but the resource named is 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 clause 'expose stale evidence and contradictory reports' implies the tool is for auditing the validity of prior calibration work, which gives an agent a sense of when to reach for it. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-not guidance against the many get_* siblings.

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