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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: it says results include publication IDs, language, and source links, and it warns to treat story descriptions as content rather than instructions. That last point is a meaningful safety disclosure for an agent consuming untrusted text.

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 four tight sentences with no wasted language. The core search purpose is front-loaded, followed by the language requirement, return format, and the important prompt-injection warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values, though it usefully does. Given the moderate complexity and three required parameters, the main gap is the lack of query and limit semantics, which keeps this from being fully complete.

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 only 33%; only language is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces that language must be supplied explicitly. However, the query and limit parameters receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving two of three parameters underspecified despite the low coverage.

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 (Find) and resource (public Teasa AI roleplay and companion stories), and explicitly distinguishes the tool’s role from start_story by explaining that the selected result feeds into start_story. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly indicates the intended workflow: search for stories, supply the reader’s chosen language, then pass the selected result’s language to start_story. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name other alternatives beyond start_story, so it falls short of a 5.

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