browse_domain_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully indicates the 'published' status filter (excluding drafts) and mentions sorting behavior ('citation count or date'), but fails to address pagination behavior, limit constraints, or error handling for invalid domains.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place, though the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of parameter documentation given the zero-coverage schema.

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?

While the output schema exists (reducing the need for return value description), the description insufficiently documents the three parameters given 0% schema coverage. The core browsing concept is present but behavioral details are sparse for a tool with multiple configuration options.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It implicitly covers 'domain' via 'in a domain' and 'sort_by' via 'citation count or date' (hinting at valid enum values), but completely omits the 'limit' parameter and fails to document parameter formats or constraints.

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 uses specific verb 'Browse' with resource 'published scrolls' and scope 'in a domain', clearly indicating the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_scrolls_tool', leaving potential ambiguity about when to browse versus search.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_scrolls_tool' or 'lookup_scroll_tool'. No prerequisites or constraints regarding domain existence or user permissions are mentioned.

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