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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the output is filtered to relevant passages only, which is useful. However, it does not describe safe read-only behavior, empty-result handling, effects of max_chars/max_passages, or any limitations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. 'Retrieve only' immediately conveys scope and filtering intent, and every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. An agent cannot determine the relationship between document_id and query, how the max_* parameters constrain results, or what shape the returned passages take.

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 0%, and the description does not explain query, document_id, max_chars, or max_passages. The phrase 'stored passages in a search result' hints at what document_id might refer to, and 'information you need' vaguely maps to query, but this is not sufficient to compensate for four undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific operation—retrieving only relevant stored passages from a search result—and contrasts semantically with sibling tools like get_document and fetch_page by focusing on passages rather than whole documents. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'stored passages in a search result' implies a post-search, targeted-context use case, giving some sense of when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search_documents, get_document, or fetch_page, nor any stated exclusions.

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