sota_summit_info

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes 'detailed'. The tool is essentially a black box beyond its stated purpose.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by mentioning availability or limitations, but it efficiently conveys the core function.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (not shown in the provided definition), the description does not need to document return values. However, the lack of behavioral details and usage guidance leaves the tool somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand its capabilities.

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% (the single parameter has an informative description). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed summit information'), and identifies the input method ('by SOTA reference code'). It naturally distinguishes from siblings that handle alerts, spots, or nearby summits.

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 through context that this tool is for retrieving summit details given a code, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over siblings like sota_spots or sota_summits_near, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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