Agent Net Answers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful scope the annotations do not: the answer is 'public' and 'reviewed', and the response carries provenance metadata, telling the agent what class of content it will receive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup key and the returned payload are both stated compactly.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input provenance and returned content adequately. It stops just short of explaining failure behavior (e.g. what happens for a non-public or unreviewed ID).

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 0%, so the schema gives only a pattern and length limits with no semantic meaning for 'id'. The description compensates by defining it as a 'search-result ID', telling the agent where the value must come from — the sibling search tool — which the schema alone does not convey.

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 (Read) and resource (reviewed public answer) and the lookup key (search-result ID). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' by operating on an already-known ID, but never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

'By its search-result ID' implies this is the follow-up step after 'search', which is useful implied context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no stated prerequisite that the ID must come from search, and no named alternative.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a hard result ceiling of ten and the inclusion of canonical URLs in the payload, which helps an agent plan follow-up calls.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 correctly picks up the burden by describing the return shape (up to ten answers, canonical URLs). Missing only minor details such as query syntax expectations or how to page beyond the ten-result limit, so it's nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the single 'query' parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap. However, a lone parameter named 'query' on a search tool is self-evident, so the practical risk of misuse is low.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the reviewed public answer catalog'), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'fetch', but the search-vs-retrieve distinction is strongly implied by the verb choice.

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?

Usage is only implied: the qualifier 'reviewed public answer catalog' scopes what content this tool reaches, hinting it's the entry point when you don't already have a URL. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the 'fetch' sibling as the alternative.

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