Irish History: 1798, O'Connell, Young Ireland & the Great Famine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'current published text,' clarifying that drafts or superseded versions won't be returned, which is useful but modest. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the selection guidance. Every clause carries information — no filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

For a single-enum-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose and selection criteria completely. The only gap is disambiguating from the get_sources sibling, which a brief 'not' note would close.

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% and the book parameter has an enum plus a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by mapping each book to its historical subject matter, letting an agent pick the correct enum value from a topic alone.

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 states a specific action and resource — 'Return the current published text of one of Spencer Hofmans' historical companion guides' — and clearly delineates the two books by topic. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_sources, but the guide-vs-figure-vs-sources distinction is reasonably inferable.

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 explicit topic-based selection guidance for the two enum values — A Heart of Oak for United Irishmen/1798, A Younger Ireland for O'Connell/Repeal/Famine/1848 — which is clear when-to-use context for the parameter. However, it never addresses when to prefer a sibling tool like search_history or get_sources over this one.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the guide corpus and historical scope, but discloses no additional operational behavior such as output limits or failure modes.

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 long, front-loads the core action, and uses the second sentence to add relevant scope. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With one required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema available, the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool on a named figure. The thematic scope and resource are both clearly identified, and no critical operational detail appears to be missing.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'name' parameter with minLength and concrete examples, so there is no documentation gap for the description to fill. The description only echoes the idea of a named figure without adding parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find passages about a named historical figure in Spencer Hofmans' Irish history guides.' It also signals the selection criterion (by name) and topic scope, which distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like search_history.

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 second sentence provides clear context for when the tool is useful, listing concrete historical subjects such as the United Irishmen, 1798, O'Connell and Repeal, and Young Ireland. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the nature of the content (primary sources, newspapers, memoirs, etc.), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand what kind of data to expect. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and object, the second gives the use case. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses space efficiently.

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?

This is a simple, read-only tool with one parameter, a well-documented schema, and an output schema present. The description fully covers when to use it and what it returns, while annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage; the 'book' parameter's description already explains it chooses the guide. The tool description adds minimal new meaning—it mentions the guides are by Spencer Hofman but doesn't elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), the exact resource (the Sources and Further Reading section from Spencer Hofmans' historical companion guides), and the topic scope (1798 or nineteenth-century Irish history). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_guide, get_historical_figure, and search_history, which serve other purposes.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this for questions about primary sources, contemporary newspapers, memoirs, archival records, historical scholarship and further reading...' This is clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since it covers the key use case, a 4 is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns passages with author attribution and canonical URLs, and it may include separately labelled historical fiction. This helps set expectations for open-world results without contradicting the annotations.

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 long but front-loaded with the core function and usage guidance before the optional fiction caveat. The extended topic list is somewhat verbose, but it serves a clear disambiguation purpose for a broad search tool and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 output schema exists, parameter descriptions are complete, and annotations cover safety and open-world behavior, the description fills remaining gaps: it defines the search scope, return format, attribution, and the optional historical-fiction behavior. An agent can reasonably decide when and how to invoke this tool without missing critical information.

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%, with both query and limit already well documented in the input schema. The tool description reinforces the query's purpose by listing example search subjects, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource (Spencer Hofmans' published historical research and companion guides), then enumerates the covered topics. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_historical_figure or get_guide by framing this as a broad search tool rather than a targeted retriever.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this for questions about...' followed by a thorough list of applicable subjects. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the use context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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