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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, but the description adds real value: it discloses the return payload (body, summary, tags, quizzes as {id, prompt}), what a miss means ('treat the concept as new'), and scope limits ('reads only the user's Eigma wiki, not the web'). It stops short of describing error/pagination behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case and mode selection, and nearly every clause carries information (return shape, miss handling, id reuse, sibling routing). It is dense and run-on, packing multiple instructions into single sentences, but there is little waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning — and it does, listing the returned fields and quiz shape. Combined with mode selection, miss handling, and id-reuse guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both title and category_path semantics (including the chapter-mode combination) are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates those rules rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read ... one existing Eigma page's FULL body') plus the chapter-level variant, and explicitly contrasts itself with eigma_search_wiki for keyword lookup. An agent can distinguish it from the search/browse siblings 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?

Gives concrete triggering situations ('before integrating an update into it, or to answer a question grounded in it') and names the alternative for a different need ('keyword lookup across the wiki is eigma_search_wiki'). It also clarifies mode selection: title for one page vs category_path with no title for a whole chapter.

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