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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it filters to only relevant passages, anchors to paragraphs, labels with sections, and explains token efficiency. No contradictions found.

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, no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, the differentiation from get_article comes second, and every clause adds information. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 tool has a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the key decisions an agent must make: when to use it, what it reads, what it returns, and how it differs from the closest sibling. No critical information is missing for a read-only search tool.

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 fully documents url, query, cursor, max_tokens, and max_passages. The description reinforces the purpose of query ('specific question about a link') and hints at URL types, but it doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 ('Read ... and return') and resource ('a public article or YouTube URL'), and defines the output precisely: only relevant passages, each anchored to its paragraph and labelled with its section. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_article, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use this instead of get_article whenever you have a specific question about a link.' It also names the alternative directly and gives a rationale (token efficiency and citable anchors), leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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