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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the two-phase matching algorithm (exact phrase/AND-of-tokens, then meaning fallback), the match='meaning' flag with cosine score, the need for verification, and the distinction between global and daftar-local indices. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense yet well-organized: purpose first, then matching behavior, citation usage, and a concrete example. Every sentence provides actionable information without filler, and the front-loading of the main purpose aids 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 complexity (two-tier matching, citation fields, global index pitfall) and the existence of an output schema, the description is impressively complete. It covers edge cases, verification, and cross-references get_range and get_section, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (limit and daftar lack descriptions). The description compensates by thoroughly explaining query semantics (exact phrase, AND-of-tokens, meaning fallback) and showing daftar=2 in the example. However, limit is never addressed, though its schema defaults and bounds mitigate 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 begins with 'Find sections (stories) by TITLE', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly states the tool's core function. It differentiates from siblings by detailing exact-word matching first and meaning fallback, and includes a concrete example, making the purpose 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use get_range with the first match's first_citation and last match's last_citation to read a full multi-section story, and verify meaning matches with get_section. It also warns against constructing citations from first_beyt_global, offering clear when-to and when-not-to instructions.

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