Resolve gallery from image page

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, while the description adds the concrete conversion behavior and accepted input forms. It does not discuss errors or edge cases like providing both page and pageUrl, but the schema handles those constraints and the safety profile is already established by annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the input forms and the output with no wasted words. It gives the agent the essential purpose immediately without repeating schema details.

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 low-complexity resolver with 100% parameter schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly; return structure and parameter constraints are already captured in the structured fields.

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 baseline is 3. The description loosely restates the input choice between a URL and a page reference, but it does not add any parameter format, default, or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific transformation: converting an image-page URL or page reference into a gallery ID and gallery token. It clearly identifies the verb, resource, and expected output, and it stands apart from sibling search and metadata tools.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used when an agent has an E-Hentai image-page URL or page reference and needs the owning gallery's ID and token. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as eh_resolve_gallery_batch for multiple references or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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