find_standards_progression_from_standard

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that the tool returns exactly one standard, that direction selects backward/forward, and that either identifier form is accepted. However, it doesn't disclose default direction behavior, what happens on invalid input, or whether both identifiers can be passed together. The 'as the real connector does' remark is cryptic and adds no actionable behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded. The phrase 'as the real connector does' is slightly obscure but doesn't bloat the description.

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?

With 3 params, no required fields, no enums, no annotations, and an output schema, the description must at least clarify critical inputs. It handles identifier choice but fails to specify the direction parameter, which is central to behavior. The cryptic connector reference and lack of direction semantics leave an agent unable to reliably select the right direction value. The output is covered by schema, so that's not a gap, but parameter completeness is insufficient.

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 description must compensate. It explains the alternative identifier forms (caseIdentifierUUID or code) but omits the third parameter, direction, entirely—despite direction being essential to the tool's purpose. It doesn't state allowed values or default behavior, leaving the agent to guess whether to pass 'backward'/'forward' or something else.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the single prerequisite ... or next ... standard'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings: siblings find statements, misconceptions, lessons, materials, and lists; this one finds progression. Even without naming siblings, the 'single standard' and 'backward/forward' phrasing makes its unique niche clear.

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 the tool (when you need a standard's immediate prerequisite or next standard) but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name when to choose this over siblings. It gives invocation guidance ('Pass caseIdentifierUUID ... or a bare code') but that's parameter usage, not tool-selection guidance. No mention of alternatives or when not to use.

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