Get a Library concept

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'the Library's full write-up as markdown' with specific sections, and that an exact slug is required. This goes beyond the name and schema, though it does not mention error handling or what happens for duplicate or invalid slugs.

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 two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and output format, the second gives usage context and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its keep, with no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains the content and format of the response, specifies when to use it, and states the required input and how to obtain it. The sibling references also enrich the context for an agent navigating the toolset.

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?

The schema already provides strong coverage (100%) with a detailed slug description and examples. The description adds value by reinforcing the need for an exact slug and pointing to search/list tools for retrieval, which helps the agent understand the parameter's provenance and criticalness.

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 the tool's function: 'Explain a trading concept' with a detailed account of what the write-up contains (definition, formula, how traders read it, indicator implementations). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the full concept write-up rather than indicator-specific or listing functionality.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for any "what is X / how does X work" question.' It also gives a clear prerequisite and direction to sibling tools: 'Needs the exact slug — find it with library_search or library_list_concepts.' This effectively tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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