Nebula - AI-first B2B digital marketing, Mumbai

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety basics. It adds useful context by specifying that only approved KB items are listed, which fields appear, and that pagination metadata includes total, offset, limit, and nextOffset.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core browse/enumerate purpose appears first, followed by usage routing and return shape. Every clause contributes either selection guidance or invocation context.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description documents the returned fields and pagination metadata. With all three parameters fully schema-documented and sibling alternatives named, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool 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%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description still adds meaning by framing limit/offset/section as paging through a section or the full allowlist and by exposing nextOffset in the return shape.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only browse/enumerate of approved Nebula KB items,' and names the exact item fields returned. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by role: list/browse versus ranked search, full record retrieval, and summary overview.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: to page through a section or the full allowlist. It also routes to alternatives by condition: nebula_search for ranked queries, nebula_section for full record content, and nebula_overview for a summary.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish the safety profile. It usefully adds the scope of the summary and the returned fields, including guardrails and graphVersion, which is valuable context absent from structured data. It does not add further behavioral details such as response size or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter tool the annotations carry most of the burden.

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 compact sentences with no filler: purpose first, selection guidance second, return contents third. The sibling-routing information is front-loaded and makes efficient use of the space.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the summary contains, when to use it, and which sibling to use otherwise. Listing the return fields compensates for the missing output schema.

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?

There are no input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 ('Read-only summary of Nebula') and enumerates the included content areas (org, founders, services, industries, frameworks, counts). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from all three siblings, so an agent can select it without inspecting other schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('Use for a company snapshot') and routes each alternative case to the right sibling: ranked queries to nebula_search, browsing titles/URLs to nebula_list, and one exact path to nebula_section. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension rewards.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope ("approved" sections only) and a return shape with pagination (nextOffset), which is valuable because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing ranking behavior, empty-result handling, or result-size limits, keeping it below a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose first, routing second, return contract third. Every clause carries information an agent needs and there is no filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the response fields and the pagination cursor. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and page this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the pagination contract by naming offset, limit, and nextOffset in the return shape, which tells an agent how to page. It does not add syntax guidance for the query string beyond what the schema example already provides.

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 ("ranked keyword search") plus a scope qualifier ("across approved Nebula KB sections"). It explicitly positions itself against all three siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

"Use when you have a query" gives the positive condition, and each alternative is named with the condition that selects it: nebula_list for unranked browsing, nebula_section for an exact path, nebula_overview for a summary. This is a complete routing table with no inference required.

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/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the return shape (path plus value, or items/total/offset/limit/nextOffset for list sections), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say what happens for an invalid path (empty result vs error), which is the remaining gap.

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 core definition, then usage routing, then return shape, then examples. The section enumeration is dense but functional; no wasted sentences.

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 and only three simple parameters, the description supplies everything needed: valid path roots, sibling routing, and the response envelope including pagination fields. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so path/limit/offset are already documented with defaults and bounds; the description only reiterates that limit/offset apply to list sections. The dotted-path examples add minor value but largely duplicate the schema's own examples.

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: 'Read-only fetch of one exact section or record by dotted path', and enumerates the valid top-level sections. An agent can distinguish this from nebula_list/nebula_search/nebula_overview without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use when you know the path from search/list', with each sibling named and its role stated (overview = summary, search = find paths, list = browse titles). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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