Generate AI insights for an OptiQra report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses API key handling (forwarded directly, never stored server-side), which is valuable. However, it does not mention failure behaviors, rate limits, or what happens if no API key is provided (though schema says optional via env var). This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence explains the core function and input constraint, the second addresses a crucial prerequisite. Every phrase earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates the output is a strategic summary. It covers input (report), processing (across categories/pages), and a caveat (API key). Could be more explicit about return format or potential errors, but for the complexity shown, it is reasonably complete.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds contextual meaning by stating the report must be a full OptiQra report from optiqra_analyze and that the API key is forwarded to the provider, but it does not elaborate further on individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('strategic, site-wide summary reasoning across all audit categories and pages'), and explicitly references optiqra_analyze as the producer of the input, distinguishing it from sibling tools that test or fix.

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 sets clear context: it takes the report from optiqra_analyze and generates AI insights, implying it should be used after analysis. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tool names (ai_test, ai_fix) provide implicit differentiation. The mention of API key requirements adds a practical precondition.

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