find_standard_statement

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the operation is a read/resolve and names the return fields, but says nothing about how the optional parameters interact, whether results are restricted or ranked, or what happens when both code and keywords are supplied. It is not misleading, just thin.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the action, inputs, and return are front-loaded. It is concise to the point of omitting needed parameter context, but as a structure it is efficient.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It lacks usage conditions, parameter interactions, and the meaning of jurisdiction/academicSubject. The output schema covers the return shape, so that part is fine, but an agent cannot reliably choose or call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must define all four parameters. It only explains 'code' (prefix) and 'keywords'; 'jurisdiction' and 'academicSubject' are absent, leaving their role as filters or inputs unstated. Since all parameters are optional, the omission is a real gap.

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 ('Resolve'), a resource ('standards'), and the two lookup routes ('code (prefix)' or 'keywords'), and names the return ('statement text + UUID'). This clearly separates it from siblings that fetch progressions, misconceptions, or lessons, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 says what lookup inputs are accepted but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over find_standards_progression_from_standard or list_standards_for_mathematical_practice, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling set.

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