cross_pollinate

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

No annotations exist, so description fully bears the burden. It discloses search scope (4 tables), result limit (top 5), and returned fields (source type, title, snippet). It fails to mention if the operation is read-only or if there are any side effects, but overall behavioral traits are well explained.

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?

Description is three sentences: first sentence states purpose, second details tables and output, third is the Args section. No redundancy, perfectly front-loaded, and each sentence adds value.

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 one parameter, no output schema shown, and no annotations, the description covers the operation well: what it does, where it searches, what it returns. Missing details like whether it includes any filtering or pagination info, but sufficient for a retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides a one-line param description: 'Text to find cross-domain connections for.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's title/type, but it's minimal. Adequate for a single, straightforward parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Find cross-domain connections' and specifies the resource: 'given text'. It elaborates on the search scope (4 tables) and output format (top 5 with source type, title, snippet). Could be more precise about 'cross-domain connections', but it's clear enough.

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?

No information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_connections' or 'search_library'. No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite conditions provided. Given many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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