get_standard

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the fuzzy-input resolution behavior and the conditional full-text download via docling, which are non-obvious behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids fluff and provides necessary details in two short paragraphs.

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?

With an output schema present and only two simple parameters, the description is complete for its complexity. It covers the core retrieval, fuzzy resolution, and optional full-text behavior, leaving no major gaps in understanding the tool's functionality.

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%, and the description largely restates the schema's parameter explanations (canonical/fuzzy identifier, fetch_full_text with docling condition). It adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('standard by identifier'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_standards and resolve_standard_identifier by focusing on fetching a standard. The fuzzy-to-canonical resolution detail further clarifies its unique role.

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 implies usage: fetch a standard by identifier, with optional full-text retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives like resolve_standard_identifier for pure identifier resolution. This is a clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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