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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating internal steps (token budgeting, citation numbering, system instruction injection, source attribution), which helps predict output structure. It doesn't disclose edge-case behaviors (e.g., truncation strategy) but exceeds baseline.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every phrase adds information—no filler or redundancy. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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 description plus rich schema and output schema provide enough for selection and basic invocation. It covers the main functional areas and hints at all parameter roles. It omits details like truncation strategy and citation ordering, but these are secondary given the strong schema context.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by connecting parameters to their effects: max_context_tokens↔token budgeting, cite_sources↔citation numbering, system_instruction↔system instruction injection, chunks.source↔source attribution. This contextualizes the schema without duplicating it.

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 'Assemble a complete RAG prompt', combining a specific verb with resource and data source. The additional capabilities (token budgeting, citations, system instruction) distinguish it from sibling tools like few_shot_formatter or system_prompt_builder.

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?

States it operates on 'retrieved context chunks', making the input precondition clear. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the name and RAG specificity imply these boundaries.

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