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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: repeated calls return identical content rather than regenerating text, each call appends a usage-counter row, and each call returns a new invocation_id for feedback. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and determinism information an agent needs and that annotations do not 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?

Four sentences, no filler, primary behavior first, side effects after. Every sentence adds useful information and the structure makes the most important details immediately visible.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, its stable/cached behavior, its side effect, and the invocation_id usage. An output schema is present, so return details do not need to be fully explained. The main gap is that loop_slug and node parameter semantics are left shallow, and no explicit comparison with get_chapter is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are minimal: 'Loop slug', 'Chapter node', and 'Optional user context' add little real meaning. The tool description also does not explain how loop_slug and node relate to the returned framework text, nor what each node enum value means. It earns the baseline but no more.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a chapter's published framework text' and lists what that text contains (modes, questions, output format). This is much clearer than the tool title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_chapter, so it loses a point for sibling distinction.

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 gives clear intended use: the framework text is reference material for the assistant to apply when judging appropriately. This tells an agent why it would call the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like get_chapter or run_mode.

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