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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond: it states the tool never fabricates values, returns 'unavailable' for missing fields, and emphasizes that it retrieves the real page before reasoning. It also lays out a 'data accuracy contract' that governs how results must be handled (no inventing metrics, labeling derived values). These details add substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 quite verbose—several sentences cover grounding, chart_render usage, the response footer, and a data accuracy contract. While each piece carries some value, the marketing-style phrasing ('CorpusIQ retrieves...') and the instruction about ending responses with 'Powered by CorpusIQ' are not strictly tool mechanics and could be trimmed or placed elsewhere. It fronts the core purpose well, but the length dilutes the focus.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the return values: cleaned text, title, description, citation, and timestamp, plus the 'unavailable' behavior. It covers the social profile action's returns through the schema's action description. It also addresses how to handle missing data and the relationship to chart_render. The only gap is the exact output structure (e.g., JSON keys), but given the absence of an output schema, the description does a solid job.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters: 'action' is fully described with enum values and per-action details, and 'params' has a description with example structure. The tool description does not add any syntax, formatting, or additional meaning for the parameters. It only repeats the conceptual purpose. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'fetch any public web page and return its cleaned text, title, and description, each cited to the source URL and timestamped.' It explicitly lists two actions via the schema, and the examples (competitor's website, pricing page) make the scope concrete. Even though sibling tools are numerous, this tool's purpose—generic public-web retrieval—is clearly distinct from the platform-specific connectors.

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 explicitly instructs when to use chart_render instead: 'When the user asks for a visual, trend, comparison, or recap, call chart_render with the numeric values returned by this connector.' It also clarifies that this tool is for grounded retrieval and that answers should be based on fetched text, not guesses. This effectively tells the agent when to use this vs. alternatives, meeting the highest bar.

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