Reference

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool is a reference, implying no side effects, but does not confirm read-only semantics, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The lack of any behavioral detail is a significant 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?

A single sentence is efficient and well-suited for a reference tool. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for modes) to improve scannability. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, 26 enum modes, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how modes interact, what 'bounded source-traced' means, or how to construct effective queries. This forces the agent to guess at correct invocation.

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% with parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by listing reference types that overlap with enum values, but does not explain parameter relationships or usage patterns beyond what the schema 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?

The description lists the resource types (docs, recipe, formula, error, capability) and the qualifiers "bounded source-traced", making the tool's scope clear. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'look up'), relying on the noun phrase 'reference' which is still interpretable. It distinguishes well from sibling action-oriented tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dl_diagnose or dl_get_api_method_schema. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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