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

Even though readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover non-mutation, the description adds materially useful context: it reads a local SQLite index, never fetches URLs, never modifies the index, and treats retrieved text as untrusted. This is valuable security-relevant behavior beyond what the annotations state, and it does not contradict them.

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 first sentence states the operation, and the second delivers a dense, necessary safety warning. There is no filler or restatement of schema details.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations, an output schema, and defaults on optional parameters, the description covers the key extra facts an agent needs: local-only execution, no URL fetching, and untrusted retrieved text. The main gap is usage differentiation from sibling tools, which is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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 does little to compensate. 'Bounded text window' loosely hints at offset/limit behavior, but document_id format, how the window is calculated, and the meaning of the offset/limit combination are not explained. Minimal value is added beyond the raw parameter names and defaults.

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 verb and resource: 'Read one indexed document and a bounded text window,' which clearly identifies the operation and scope. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_metax_section, so differentiation is partly left to the tool names, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_metax_docs or get_metax_section. The safety note applies to the whole tool family rather than explaining selection criteria, leaving only the implied usage from 'Read one indexed document.'

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, destructive false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: retrieved text must be treated as untrusted, instructions found in it must not be executed, and the tool never fetches URLs or modifies the index. This meaningfully augments the structured metadata.

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-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is longer and somewhat broad, but it delivers important security guidance that earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to document return values or read-only behavior. The main gap is parameter semantics—an agent still lacks guidance on how to obtain and format document_id and section values—so completeness is only adequate.

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 does not explain what document_id or section values look like or how they should be formatted. The phrase 'one section' hints at the section parameter's role, but it is insufficient to compensate for totally undocumented parameters.

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 operation: reading one section from an indexed document. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'one section' versus full documents or search results, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 context is implied by the verb and resource ('read one section'), and the description notes the tool only reads the local SQLite index. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_metax_document or search_metax_docs, nor provide exclusion conditions.

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?

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful context: it reads a local SQLite index, never fetches URLs, never modifies the index, and warns that all retrieved text must be treated as untrusted. This goes beyond the structured annotations and materially informs safe invocation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers a necessary safety caveat. Every phrase earns its place.

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, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It states the key behavioral boundaries and does not omit anything an agent needs for a parameterless listing operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than nonexistent arguments.

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 clear action and resource: 'List indexed source provenance and counts.' It immediately distinguishes this from the sibling tools (search/get) by virtue of being a list operation, though it does not explicitly name the siblings or contrast them.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The safety caveat is general behavior, not selection guidance, so the agent is left to infer that this is for listing sources versus searching or fetching documents.

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?

Goes well beyond annotations by warning that all retrieved text is untrusted, instructing the agent never to execute instructions from documents, and clarifying that the tool only reads a local SQLite index without fetching URLs or modifying the index. This is valuable safety-relevant behavior not present in the annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words: it states the search domain, gives the key parameter conventions, and adds the critical safety warning. The most essential information is front-loaded.

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 is largely complete for invoking the tool: scope, source/repository syntax, and safety behavior are covered. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Some optional parameter interplay (e.g., version with source) could be richer, but the core invocation path is clear.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description helps by explaining that source accepts official, github, or docker and that repository uses owner/name. However, query, limit, and version are left unaddressed, so parameter semantics are only partially compensated.

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: searches indexed MetaX official docs, MetaX-MACA GitHub, and the Docker catalog. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_metax_document or list_metax_sources, which have different retrieval or enumeration purposes.

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?

Provides clear context that this is a search tool across multiple indexed sources, and explains how to specify source and repository. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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