get_explore_segments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only operation' and discloses the 'top 10' result limit, which are key behavioral traits beyond just returning segments. It does not mention authentication or other potential side effects, but for a read-only operation these are minor gaps.

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 short and to the point, containing only the necessary information: a title, endpoint reference, return behavior, and read-only flag. The structure is clean but includes some redundancy ('Explore segments' title vs. description), and the read-only note is placed last. Overall, it is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 conveys the core purpose and the read-only nature, but it omits details about the return format (e.g., that it returns segment summaries, not full segment details) and any potential errors or edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more context on what the response contains would be helpful. It is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including bounds, min_cat, max_cat, and activity_type. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning—it only vaguely refers to 'a specified query', which is less informative than the schema itself. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters well.

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 clearly states it returns the top 10 segments matching a query, which is a specific verb+resource with a scope. It identifies the tool as an exploration/search endpoint, distinguishing it from segment-specific tools like get_segment_by_id. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 alternatives like get_segment_by_id or other segment-related endpoints. The phrase 'matching a specified query' implies a search use case, but no when/when-not conditions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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