get_ro_reference_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states that the tool returns a summary (not full page) and specifies the allowed sources (iRO Wiki or Fandom, vanilla reference). However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling, caching, or whether exact title matching is required for the result.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus two parameter explanations. Every word is functional, and the structure immediately communicates the tool's core purpose and key parameter constraints without any filler.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and has an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. However, the description is missing usage guidance relative to sibling tools, and there are no annotations to cover behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation or what happens on lookup failure.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that source_id accepts 'irowiki' or 'fandom' and that title must be the exact article title. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from examples or formatting notes.

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 provides a summary ('Resumen') of an RO article from iRO Wiki or Fandom. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the specific mention of 'iRO Wiki o Fandom' and 'vanilla' distinguishes it from generic wiki tools, giving it a specific verb+resource+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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_ro_reference_page or search_ro_reference. Usage is only implied by the purpose.

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