Omiss Award Recipients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses result ordering (newest first) and the single-member check mode, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit field.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary list behavior before the secondary check mode. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, so return values and parameters need no further explanation. The only modest gap is the absence of any safety/read-only or access context in a tool that carries no annotations.

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 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's 'check one member' hints that callsign/om_number act as single-member filters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names a specific verb (list/check) and resource (OMISS award recipients), and adds the ordering rule 'newest certificates first'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named siblings omiss_awards and omiss_award_rules, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'or check one member' implies the alternate mode (single-member lookup via callsign/om_number), giving implicit usage guidance. It never states explicitly when to prefer this over omiss_awards or omiss_award_rules, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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