get_highlights

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, so the description adds value by explaining the ranking criterion (supporting evidence) and the tool's role as an entry point. It discloses that results are ranked and curated, going beyond the structural hints. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences, with the key 'curated entry point' and ranking logic front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it conveys the selection criteria and the overview nature. It doesn't specify the output format (e.g., list of IDs vs. details), but that is a minor gap for an overview tool. Overall, an agent can call it correctly based on this description.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain them. The baseline is 4, and the description doesn't mislead or require compensation since schema coverage is trivially 100%. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 curated entry point of best-evidenced interactions ranked by supporting evidence. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_interaction or list_interactions by emphasizing the 'curated' and 'overview' nature. While it doesn't use an explicit verb like 'returns,' the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Good for a quick, strong overview' implies when to use it (initial exploration) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks the direct comparison seen in high-quality definitions, such as 'use search_calls_extensive instead.' The guidance is present but underdeveloped.

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