Omiss Awards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait: results are restricted to awards that actually have recipients, which explains why the list may be shorter than the total award set. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, caching, or ordering, and for a read-only, zero-parameter list tool that is a moderate rather than severe 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?

Two short lines with the scope filter front-loaded, which is the right emphasis. The 'Returns: awards with award_id and name' line duplicates the output schema that already exists, so it is mildly redundant rather than wasteful.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything the agent needs: what is listed, the inclusion criterion, and how the returned IDs are consumed. Return-value structure need not be explained because the output schema supplies it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly mentions the award_id values it emits, which is the nearest thing to a parameter contract since those IDs feed downstream tools.

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 ('List the OMISS awards') plus a meaningful scope qualifier ('that have recipients'), which separates it from what an unfiltered award list would be. It also ties its output IDs back to the other award tools, giving the agent a reason to call it before them. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling tool consumes those IDs, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 'with the award IDs the other award tools take' implies this is the entry point for the award family, so usage is reasonably inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus omiss_award_rules or omiss_award_recipients, and no stated precondition (e.g., that an award with zero recipients is intentionally excluded). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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