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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: premium choices are labeled with following scenes omitted, subscriber-only text is never returned, and the canonical URL is always included. This is exactly the extra context the annotations leave out.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contract and dense with information; every sentence carries weight. The middle clauses listing text/pinyin/glosses are a touch run-on but remain readable and purposeful.

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 no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of describing the return payload (text, pinyin/pronunciation, glosses, opening choices, URL) and the failure modes. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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% and the schema already documents story_id with a pattern, maxLength, and an example. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the free opening scene of one public InkQuest story') with precise scope ('free', 'public'). It is easily distinguished from list_stories and recommend_story, which enumerate or suggest rather than fetch a scene.

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 clear operating context by enumerating what it refuses (unknown ids, withdrawn demos, locked stories, user-generated stories) and ties the id source to list_stories. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent between this tool and its siblings when both could seem plausible.

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