pixera_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the offline/static nature, the API revision, and that results vary by query shape (full name -> signature + doc, prefix -> method list, substring -> matches). It does not explain the 'limit' cap or result-count behavior, leaving one behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the no-connection fact, then the three query forms, then the routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place; the examples are compact and load-bearing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers query semantics and the offline constraint well. The only material omission is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which an agent would have to infer from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it thoroughly explains the required 'query' param across three input modes and even documents the params.handle convention for class methods. The optional 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, so compensation is strong but incomplete.

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 ('Look up Pixera API methods offline') with the data source identified (rev 481 API JSON). It clearly separates itself from the invocation sibling by ending with 'Use before pixera_call.'

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this before pixera_call, and it clarifies that no connection is needed, which distinguishes it from the live-call siblings. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g., to merely test existence use pixera_has_function), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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