Get In-Progress Badges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by defining 'in progress' as 'started but not completed', which clarifies the state and complements the annotations. No contradictions; it adds value beyond the structured data.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, matching the efficiency of the high-calibration example.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with an open-world hint, the description is complete. It clearly defines the exact scope of data returned, and there is no output schema requiring explanation. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers semantics.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly provides no additional parameter information, and there is nothing to document. The schema Coverage is 100% (trivially), so the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Get badges that are currently in progress' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_earned_badges (completed) and get_available_badges (not yet started) by explicitly defining the state: 'started but not completed'.

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 when to use it (when you need in-progress badges) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Unlike the high-calibration example, there's no direct comparison to sibling tools, so the usage context 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.