DM20 Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the search is 'case-insensitive' and provides default values, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, permissions needed, or what the return format looks like (especially important with no output 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 brief overview followed by parameter details. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the parameter section slightly repeats schema content. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., result format, error cases) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema, leaving uncertainty about what the tool returns.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats that 'query' searches titles and is case-insensitive, and mentions defaults, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches 'across all indexed library content' and specifies it searches 'TOC entries by title across all indexed PDF and Markdown sources.' This provides a specific verb (search) and resource (library content/TOC entries), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_rules' or 'get_library_toc' beyond mentioning content type filtering.

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?

The description implies usage for searching library content by title with content type filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_rules' or 'get_library_toc.' It provides some context (searching titles, filtering by content type) but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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