get_standard

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds a real behavioral constraint: version and standard must be compatible (sdtmig uses 3-x, sdtm uses 1-x/2-x), which prevents failed calls. It says nothing about error behavior on mismatch or about what 'raw' changes beyond what the schema already states, so it adds only modest value over 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?

Three tight lines: purpose and return contents first, then a worked example, then the caveat. No redundancy with the schema and nothing extraneous — every sentence either scopes the tool or prevents a misuse.

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 simple read tool with 3 fully documented parameters and an existing readOnlyHint, the description covers purpose, returned content, and the main failure mode (version mismatch). It lacks only an explicit sibling routing statement, which is a minor omission given the rich sibling list.

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 goes beyond it by supplying concrete example values (standard='sdtmig', version='3-4' or '3.4' or 'latest') and the cross-parameter validity rule that a schema cannot express. That materially reduces the chance of a mismatched pair being sent.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (获取指定标准的基本信息 / get basic information for a specified standard) and names the returned fields — 描述、生效日期、包含的类列表 — so an agent knows this is the metadata entry point rather than a listing tool like get_classes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it just short of 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?

Usage guidance is limited to a matching rule (standard and version must correspond) and a fallback ('latest' when unsure), which is really parameter guidance rather than when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives. There is no statement about when to call get_standard versus get_classes or get_datasets, so the agent must infer that from the returned-field list.

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