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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the response includes both accepted and rejected claims and explains the coverage number's derivation, which is some transparency about the output content. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 verbose, repetitive, and poetic. Phrases like 'Everything about one crosswalk pair' and 'One framework pair in full: the coverage percentage...' convey the same idea redundantly. The unnecessary elaboration ('The rejected claims are part of the answer, not an appendix...') adds no value and obscures the core information, making it poorly structured and inefficient.

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?

While the description provides some detail about the response content (including coverage percentage, accepted/refuted claims), it omits crucial context about the tool's purpose, parameters, and relationship to sibling tools. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the full scope and appropriate usage, especially given the absence of annotations and a clear schema explanation.

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 description does not mention or explain any of the parameters (source, target, limit). It fails to define what 'source' and 'target' represent (likely framework identifiers) or how 'limit' affects the response. This leaves the agent without essential information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 the tool returns 'everything about one crosswalk pair' and elaborates on coverage and claims, but it is vague and does not clearly specify the action (e.g., retrieve, fetch, get) or the exact nature of a 'crosswalk pair'. It fails to crisply define the tool's core function, leaving the reader with a general sense but not a precise purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_crosswalk_provenance or agent_crosswalk_refuted. It does not mention any selection criteria, use cases, or distinctions from sibling tools, leaving the agent without context to choose appropriately.

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