Omiss Award Rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. It usefully discloses the mode switch conditioned on award_id and the fields returned in list mode (name, ID, summary), which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or volume/pagination of the 'every award' listing.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the conditional variant. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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 only one optional parameter and an output schema that already documents return values, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of any safety or auth guidance, which for a read-only lookup tool is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: the semantic effect of omitting award_id (default empty string) is a full enumeration rather than a single lookup. It also points to omiss_awards as a source for the ID.

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 and resource ('Get an OMISS award's rules') and clearly discloses the dual mode of operation, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling omiss_awards listing tool. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, which keeps it from 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?

The parenthetical '(no award_id)' implies when the list mode applies, giving implied usage guidance. It never states when to use this tool versus omiss_awards or omiss_award_recipients, 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.