describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses defaults (['about']), static vs route-relative behavior, and the need to pass the same `query`/`facets` for `facets` and `evidence`. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a bulleted list of sections, and a short note on prerequisites/exclusions. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains what each section returns, the relationships between parameters, and how this tool fits with siblings. It is complete and self-contained.

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 compensates heavily. It explains `tool_id`, `query`, `facets`, and `sections` (listing the four section names and their meanings). However, `evidence_k` is not explicitly mentioned, though its purpose is implied by the 'evidence' section description.

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 a specific verb ('Pull') and resource ('ONE tool's detail on demand'), and immediately distinguishes from siblings by referencing `recommend` and `connect_info`. It clearly states the tool's function and scope.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each section, which parameters are needed for which sections, and what is NOT included ('Connect steps are NOT here — `connect_info(tool_id)` owns those'). This fully clarifies usage vs alternatives.

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