Find Kalyvox help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it clearly states the observable behavior: returning a URL rather than article content or a search result list. It does not discuss failure behavior or authentication, but for a simple read-only lookup that is a minor gap.

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 sentence that leads with the action and object, with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to telling the agent what the tool does and when it applies.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the input type, the return value, and the domain. The only missing context is explicit guidance about which sibling tools cover other question types, but that is more of a usage-guideline nicety than a correctness gap.

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 schema already explains that 'query' is the Kalyvox setup or product question. The description's addition of 'configuration' broadens the term slightly but provides no examples or syntax guidance.

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 verb ('Return'), a concrete resource ('official Kalyvox help-center URL'), and a clear scope ('setup, configuration or product question'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_kalyvox_overview or get_kalyvox_features without opening their schemas.

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 says the tool is for setup, configuration, or product questions, which gives useful context for when to use it. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the choice among the get_kalyvox_* siblings implicit rather than explicit.

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