Find latest gallery version

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by listing the error conditions: invalid references, deleted galleries, authentication failures, challenge pages, and upstream errors are returned as tool errors.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the sibling alternative is stated immediately after, and the error contract is a single compact sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value does not need explanation. The description covers scope, the alternative tool, and failure behavior, which is complete for a read-only resolution tool with well-annotated safety hints.

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 three parameters and their relationships (gallery vs galleryUrl, site override behavior). The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond saying 'one gallery,' which is sufficient given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: resolve one gallery's official and detail-page version chain and return the latest semantic version. It also names the sibling tool 'eh_get_gallery_chain' as the one for the complete chain, clearly differentiating this tool's 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 explicitly tells the agent when to use a sibling instead: 'Use eh_get_gallery_chain when the complete ordered chain is needed.' This directly establishes the use condition and the alternative, which is exactly what an agent needs to choose correctly.

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