kaken_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only, authentication needs, error handling for invalid numbers, or any side effects. The mention of equivalence to search adds some context but is insufficient for full transparency.

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 three sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage context, and comparison to sibling tools.

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 explains the tool's purpose and relation to search, but given the absence of an output schema, it does not describe the return format or fields. With low complexity (2 params), the information is partially complete but omits what the agent can expect after execution.

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 50% (only awardNumber has a description). The tool's description repeats the schema description for awardNumber but adds no details about the format parameter or its enum values. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain the second parameter.

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 action (get details of one project) and the resource (by award number). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it's for when the number is already known and explicitly compares to kaken_search_projects.

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 specifies when to use this tool (when the award number is already known) and provides an alternative (kaken_search_projects with qb), stating that this tool should be prioritized due to clearer purpose.

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