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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by describing the content of results (summaries, transcripts, entities, events). It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond the structured data.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes several relevant details without unnecessary verbosity. Every phrase earns its place.

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, but the description gives a high-level overview of return types. It does not mention the full list of section options or the truncation behavior, but these are covered by the schema. Overall adequate for a retrieval tool with annotations.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the truncation behavior for 'section'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves structured analysis results for a completed Echosaw job, listing example content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like echosaw_check_job_status and echosaw_download_media.

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 'for a completed job' gives clear context on when to use the tool, implying the job must be finished first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as checking status first.

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