get_toc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return shape ('an indented outline, one line per node with title and reader URL'), the usable depth range (1-6), and host restrictions/defaults. It omits permission requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior, but for a read-only outline tool this is solid coverage.

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 dense sentences that lead with the core action and follow with input/constraint detail; nothing is wasted. The second sentence is somewhat packed with host rules, but every clause 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, input sources, depth semantics, and host constraints are all present. The main gap is the absence of any cross-reference to sibling tools for routing, which would fully close the loop.

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 description must compensate and largely does: it defines `depth` as 1-6 levels (a constraint absent from the schema) and explains `url` as any reader URL from search results, TOC lines, or page links, plus the allowed/default hosts. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare `string`/`integer` schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show the table of contents') and pins down scope ('of the publication, or of the subtree under the topic, in `url`'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling `list_publications`, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It usefully states where valid input comes from ('Reader URLs from any search result, TOC line or page link are valid input') and constrains the allowed hosts, which is real invocation guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs. `read_page`/`list_publications` routing, so the selection logic is only implied.

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