get_gate_criteria

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: it never states this is a read-only lookup, what happens if gate_number is outside 1–7 or non-integer, or whether results are static versus dependent on project state. The one piece of behavioral context it does offer – that the return is the 'exact' keys and descriptions – is thin and largely covered by the output schema.

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 zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is a completeness problem rather than a structure problem.

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 existence of an output schema means the description needn't describe return values, and for a one-parameter lookup this is close to adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should still say what happens for out-of-range gates and how it relates to validate_gate, both of which are missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema declares gate_number only as an unconstrained integer, so the description's 'Gate 1–7' usefully supplies the valid range that the schema omits. Beyond that range hint, it adds no format, default, or error semantics for the single 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('exact answer keys and descriptions') scoped to 'Gate 1–7', so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'validate_gate', which is the obvious near-neighbor, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the natural alternative (validate_gate) or to the sequencing of fetching criteria before validating a gate. The only usage signal is implicit in the purpose statement.

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