Neotoma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves snapshots with provenance and supports historical data via a parameter, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'provenance information' entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a key feature. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys essential information without being overly brief.

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?

Given the complexity (retrieval with provenance and historical support), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or fully document parameters, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions an 'at' parameter for historical snapshots, but the input schema only lists 'entity_id' as a property, and 'at' is not documented in the schema. This creates confusion and incomplete parameter documentation, failing to adequately explain the parameters beyond the schema.

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 'retrieve' and the resource 'snapshot of an entity with provenance information', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_entity_by_identifier' by focusing on snapshots and provenance, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the name.

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 mentions 'Supports historical snapshots via 'at' parameter', which implies usage for historical data, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retrieve_entities' or 'retrieve_entity_by_identifier'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving gaps in usage context.

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