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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the same-paper scoping constraint and the configurable window size, but does not discuss boundary behavior or return structure. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate 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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core function and key constraint, the second provides a usage hint. No filler or 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required), has an output schema, and annotations. The description covers the core purpose and window behavior. It doesn't explain edge cases like boundaries, but given the output schema and low complexity, the description is adequately complete.

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 each parameter has clear text in the schema (e.g., window described as 'Number of paragraphs before and after'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 gets a paragraph along with a configurable window of surrounding paragraphs within the same paper. The verb 'Get' and resource 'paragraph with surrounding context' are specific and the scope 'within the same paper' distinguishes it from sibling tools like paragraphs.get.

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 indicates usefulness 'for understanding passages in context,' providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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