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 the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful nuance that the returned text is the 'current published' version, but it does not describe additional behavior such as content format or edge cases. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler: the core function is first, the invocation condition follows, and the book-selection guidance is packed into the final sentence. 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?

For a single-parameter tool with a rich enum, output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers when to invoke the tool and how to choose the right guide. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and the enum descriptions are already helpful. The description goes further by mapping each guide to its historical subject matter, which meaningfully helps an agent select the correct parameter value beyond the schema 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 precise action and resource: 'Return the current published text' of a named set of guides. It also clarifies scope by distinguishing full-guide retrieval from other operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit invocation condition: 'only when the user explicitly asks to read the full guide or requests extensive context from that guide.' It also provides clear per-book selection criteria by topic, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when those should be used instead.

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 convey read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the corpus limitation (passages within Spencer Hofmans' guides) and the historical focus, which help set expectations. There is no contradiction with 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 two sentences with no fluff. The operation and corpus are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds genuinely useful topical scope without redundancy.

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 tool has a single required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, whose guides are searched, and which historical topics are relevant. It could mention empty-result behavior for figures outside the guides, but the open-world hint and output schema mitigate that gap.

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 the name parameter clearly documented and given examples. The description reinforces that the parameter refers to a named historical figure and connects it to the guide corpus, but it does not add substantive details beyond the schema's own description.

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: 'Find passages about a named historical figure in Spencer Hofmans' Irish history guides.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like search_history or get_guide, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives useful topical context, indicating the tool is suited to figures associated with the United Irishmen, 1798, O'Connell and Repeal, Young Ireland, and the Great Famine. However, it does not state when this tool should be avoided or name sibling alternatives, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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 carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context by specifying what content the returned section contains, going beyond the schema. No contradiction exists between the description's read-oriented language and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by providing usage context. Nothing redundant or filler-like.

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 simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations, an output schema, and enum-constrained input, the description is nearly complete. It covers what it returns and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit contrast with search_history, but the content-scope phrasing adequately disambiguates it.

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 single 'book' parameter is fully documented with an enum of two values and a description. The description adds the context that these are Spencer Hofmans' historical companion guides, but doesn't enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full load.

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') and resource ('Sources and Further Reading section from one of Spencer Hofmans' historical companion guides'), and narrows the content scope to primary sources, newspapers, memoirs, archival records, and scholarship on 1798/nineteenth-century Irish history. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_guide (a whole guide) and search_history (search results) by indicating it returns a static bibliography section.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for questions about primary sources, contemporary newspapers, memoirs, archival records, historical scholarship and further reading,' giving clear context on when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the domain scoping ('1798 or nineteenth-century Irish history') provides solid 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the output includes 'relevant passages with author attribution and canonical source URLs', and clarifies the fiction filtering behavior. This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 moderately long but effectively front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then lists example topics for guidance, and closes with output details and the fiction caveat. Every sentence contributes value, though the topic list could be slightly trimmed without loss. Overall it is well-structured and readable.

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 an output schema, so return values are documented. The description covers the search scope, typical queries, output format, and the fiction filter, which is comprehensive for a search tool. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but that is covered by the schema's limit parameter. Given the annotations and schema richness, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% (both query and limit have descriptions). The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, but it does provide a rich list of example query topics, which implicitly guides parameter usage. Since the schema already documents both parameters well, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value on parameter 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 clearly states the tool searches published historical research and companion guides for factual material, with a specific verb (search) and resource. It lists a comprehensive set of topics it covers, which distinguishes it from the more specific sibling tools (get_guide, get_historical_figure, get_sources) that likely retrieve single items. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable for an agent.

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 for when to use the tool by enumerating many historical topics it addresses, and it explicitly states the fiction-returning condition ('only when the user explicitly asks for books, novels, historical fiction or further reading'). However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling tools as alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a specific guide or figure is needed). This is a minor gap but the guidance is still strong.

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