Get Yok Tez Thesis Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description implies a read-only operation ('Fetch', 'calls a single JSON endpoint') and notes a cost advantage, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention any rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. While the read-only nature is strongly implied, the lack of explicit side-effect disclosure leaves room for improvement given the absence of 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 and well-structured. It begins with a one-sentence summary, lists the return fields in a clear bulleted format, and ends with a cost/usage note. There is no redundant or filler text, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema (indicated in context), and the description explicitly lists the key return fields, so an agent knows exactly what to expect. It also explains the cost difference and typical use case, making the description complete for decision-making and correct invocation. Missing error handling details are not critical for this metadata-fetch tool.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including the mutual exclusivity and preference for detail_page_url. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 tool 'Fetches rich thesis metadata WITHOUT downloading the PDF', using a specific verb (fetch) and resource (thesis metadata). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_yok_tez_document_markdown by stating it does not download the PDF, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Much cheaper than get_yok_tez_document_markdown' and 'Ideal for surveying or citing theses without needing their body text.' It names the alternative tool directly, allowing an agent to choose correctly between the two based on the need for body text vs. metadata.

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