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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it is retrieval-only, returns relevant pages, and includes source URLs for citation. This is useful beyond the schema and prevents the agent from expecting a direct answer or mutation. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds valuable context: what it retrieves, what content it covers, and the instruction that it is retrieval-only.

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 the moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the output's nature (pages and source URLs), and the question scope. It could have explicitly described the return structure, but the mention of 'most relevant pages' and 'source URLs' gives the agent enough context to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'question' and 'limit' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for full schema 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('most relevant pages from octurasolutions.com'), and lists the content types covered (guides, Odoo vs X comparisons, app pages, pricing, partner info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculators by framing the purpose as grounding answers in Octura content.

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 provides clear context: use this tool for Odoo/ERP questions that need grounding in Octura content. It explicitly states 'Retrieval only; you compose the answer,' which guides the agent on when to use it and what it should NOT do. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like compare_odoo_vs or find_odoo_apps_for as alternatives, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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