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

The description discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: repeated calls return identical content (not regenerated), each call appends a usage-counter row, and each call returns a new invocation_id for feedback. This is valuable operational context 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: one for what is returned, one for idempotent behavior, one for side effects and feedback linkage. No fluff, no repetition of schema content, and the most differentiating information is front-loaded.

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 the core behavior, the side effect, and the deterministic nature of the tool. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. It could additionally mention prerequisites or explicit alternative conditions, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the 'mode' concept and the granularity of the call, but it does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema's descriptions and enum already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource: 'published framework text for one named mode within a chapter.' It also distinguishes itself from fetching the full chapter, which separates it from the sibling run_chapter. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: when a single mode's text is needed rather than the entire chapter. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'rather than the full chapter' contrast provides solid contextual guidance.

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