iranti

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a retrieval operation that returns specific data fields (value, summary, confidence, etc.), requires a prerequisite call to 'iranti_attend', and has a specific protocol tracking mechanism via agent parameters. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about whether this is a read-only operation or has side effects.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It uses clear paragraphs to separate different aspects (purpose, prerequisites, usage guidelines, comparison). While efficient, it could be slightly more concise by combining some related concepts into fewer sentences.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job providing context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, prerequisites, and what it returns. The only minor gap is that without an output schema, more detail about the return structure would be helpful, though the listed fields (value, summary, confidence, etc.) provide reasonable guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'entity+key' but doesn't provide additional context about format, constraints, or usage of the agent parameters. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'lookup') and resources ('current fact', 'entity+key'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'iranti_search' by stating 'prefer this over iranti_search when the target fact is already known', providing clear differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use ('when you already know both the entity and the key'), when not to use ('do not answer from memory alone before checking Iranti'), prerequisites ('call iranti_attend before this discovery tool'), and alternatives ('prefer this over iranti_search'). This gives comprehensive guidance for proper tool selection.

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