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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world (handles missing data gracefully). The description adds minimal context by specifying lookup criteria, but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details. With annotations providing a solid foundation, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context, warranting a baseline 3.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and criteria. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no required params), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the lookup purpose and criteria, which, combined with structured data, provides adequate context. However, it could improve by hinting at the output format or usage scenarios, slightly limiting completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters ('spelling or vocabulary id'), aligning with the schema's 'spellings' and 'ids' arrays. However, it doesn't explain semantics like what constitutes a valid ID, how spellings are matched (exact, partial, case-sensitive), or the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., if both can be used together). The description adds basic meaning but doesn't fully bridge the coverage gap, resulting in a 3.

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 action ('Look up') and resource ('Maimemo vocabulary records'), specifying the lookup criteria ('by spelling or vocabulary id'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'maimemo_get_due_words' or 'maimemo_list_today_words' by focusing on lookup rather than retrieval of specific categories. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4 instead of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this lookup is preferred over sibling tools like 'maimemo_list_today_words' for general vocabulary access or 'maimemo_get_due_words' for specific learning contexts. There's no indication of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the agent knows it's a safe, repeatable query operation. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying what can be queried (next study date, spelling list, etc.) and mentioning 'count-only mode', which suggests different output formats. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently lists all filtering capabilities. Every word earns its place by specifying queryable dimensions. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information.

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?

Given the tool has comprehensive annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world) and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides adequate context for a query tool. It identifies all parameters and the core functionality. However, it could better explain how this differs from sibling query tools and provide more parameter semantics to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It mentions all five parameters (next study date, spelling list, limit, count-only mode) by name, giving basic semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., that startDate/endDate define a date range), formats (e.g., date string format), or constraints (e.g., spelling list size limits). The schema provides structural details but no descriptions.

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's purpose as querying Maimemo study records with specific filtering criteria (next study date, spelling list, limit, count-only mode). It uses the specific verb 'query' and identifies the resource as 'Maimemo study records'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'maimemo_get_today_progress' or 'maimemo_list_today_words', which also appear to retrieve study data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists filtering parameters but doesn't explain scenarios where this query tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'maimemo_find_vocabulary' or 'maimemo_get_today_progress'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it returns 'full content and parsed word list', which clarifies the output behavior beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and the added detail enhances transparency about what data is retrieved.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key details ('full content and parsed word list'). There is no wasted text, and every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only operation), annotations cover safety and behavior, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is complete enough. It provides the necessary purpose and output context without redundancy, aligning well with the structured data provided.

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 has 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description compensates by explaining that the tool gets a notepad 'by id', adding meaning to the parameter. However, it does not specify format or constraints for the 'id' (e.g., numeric, UUID), leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('Maimemo cloud notepad'), and specific scope ('by id with full content and parsed word list'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'maimemo_list_notepads' (which lists notepads) and 'maimemo_get_due_words' (which focuses on words), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 usage when a specific notepad ID is known, as it retrieves by 'id'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'maimemo_list_notepads' for browsing or other tools for different data types. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it only states what data is returned without detailing format, potential errors, or rate limits. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral insights.

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, clear sentence: 'Return today's Maimemo study progress and study time.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly informing the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what data is returned, which complements the output schema. However, it could be more complete by including usage guidelines or distinguishing from siblings, but for a basic read operation, it provides enough context to understand the tool's role.

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 has no parameters (parameter count: 0), and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to explain. It efficiently focuses on the output ('today's Maimemo study progress and study time'), which is appropriate given the context.

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's purpose: 'Return today's Maimemo study progress and study time.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('today's Maimemo study progress and study time'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., maimemo_get_due_words, maimemo_list_today_words), which also retrieve study-related data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like maimemo_get_due_words or maimemo_list_today_words, which might offer overlapping or complementary functionality. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about filtering capabilities (limit, offset, ids), which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination details, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists parameters without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (list operation), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It could improve by mentioning sibling tool distinctions or pagination behavior, but it adequately covers the core functionality and parameters.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all three parameters (limit, offset, ids) and indicating they are optional filters. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by clarifying their purpose for filtering, though it does not detail format constraints (e.g., id string requirements).

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 action ('List'), resource ('Maimemo cloud notepads'), and scope ('with optional limit, offset, and id filters'), distinguishing it from siblings like maimemo_get_notepad (singular retrieval) and maimemo_list_today_words (different resource type).

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 usage for listing notepads with filtering options, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like maimemo_get_notepad or maimemo_find_vocabulary. It provides clear context for filtering but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (no rate limits, auth needs, or specific constraints). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists all optional parameters. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters), rich annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies all parameters and their optional nature, though it could better explain parameter semantics and usage context relative to siblings.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all four parameters (status, freshness, spelling, limit) and their optional nature. However, it doesn't explain what 'freshness' or 'status' mean semantically (e.g., 'new' vs 'review', 'finished' vs 'unfinished'), leaving gaps that the schema's enums don't fully clarify.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'today's Maimemo study words', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'maimemo_get_today_progress' by focusing on words rather than progress metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'maimemo_get_due_words' which might also list words.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'maimemo_find_vocabulary' or 'maimemo_get_due_words'. It mentions optional filters but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what distinguishes this listing from other word-related tools.

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