valyu_answer

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions cost ($0.10+/request) and that answers include citations. However, it does not disclose latency, rate limits, or whether the tool is idempotent or resouce-intensive. The cost hint adds value but behavioral coverage is moderate.

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 short sentences, no redundant phrasing. Every word serves a purpose: the core function, the API source, and the cost. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given an output schema exists (though not shown), return values are covered. But the tool has 0% parameter schema coverage and no usage guidance. The description is adequate for a simple tool but insufficient given the context of multiple sibling tools and lack of annotations.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., length, format) or what 'fast_mode' does (e.g., trade-off between speed and quality). This is a critical gap.

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 provides an AI-synthesized answer with citations, using the Valyu Answer API. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_web (search results) and extract_content (raw extraction). The verb 'Get' and resource 'AI-synthesized answer' are specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_web, recover_article). The cost hint ($0.10+/request) is a usage consideration but does not provide when-not-to-use or compare to siblings.

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