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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so strongly. It states values are verified .aidos-file values, requires verbatim quoting, and explicitly forbids estimation or training-data recall. This materially shapes how the agent should source and present the returned facts.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the usage trigger, then the anti-fabrication constraint. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

The tool has a single optional parameter with a fully documented schema, no annotations, and no output schema. The description supplies enough operational context: what facts are returned, when to call it, and how to handle the output (verbatim quoting). Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema fully documents the chapter parameter, including enum values, default, format, and the ct/leds distinction. The description adds only the generic phrase 'selected chapter', which does not improve on the schema's explanation.

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 identifies the resource ('structural facts of the selected chapter') and enumerates the content: topology, rate limits, interrupt distributions, and expected efficiency. It does not use an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', but the tool name and 'Use when...' make the operation clear. It distinguishes this from sibling narrative/explanation tools implicitly via 'structural facts' and 'configuration'.

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 a specific trigger: use when the user asks about the line's configuration. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the trigger is concrete and scoped enough for an agent to select it.

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