get_instrument_event_mappings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON array of mappings and an error message if the project is not longitudinal. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or other potential side effects, which is a minor gap.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose in the first and return behavior in the second. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter tool.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete: it states the scope (longitudinal only) and the return type, and it notes the error condition. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, making parameter semantics trivial. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters, and the schema already fully covers the empty parameter set. The baseline of 4 is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mapping of instruments to events'), and clarifies it applies to 'longitudinal projects only'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_instruments or export_events, which focus on individual entities rather than mappings.

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 provides a clear usage condition ('longitudinal projects only') and implies the tool is for retrieving mappings, not for modifying them. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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