Connected research

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior and an error signal ('unavailable flags retrieval, contract or size failure'), which is genuine value beyond annotations, but the phrasing is cryptic and omits what partial failures return.

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?

Three short sentences, no padding, and the core capability is front-loaded. The telegraphic, article-dropped style ('unavailable flags retrieval, contract or size failure') sacrifices parseability for brevity, so it is compact but not clean.

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?

With annotations present, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the structured fields carry most of the load. The description supplies pagination and failure semantics but never explains the shape or meaning of the returned cross-product metadata, leaving the tool's actual contract under-specified.

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% and all three parameters (limit, topic, offset) are documented in the schema, including the enum constraint and max of 25. The description adds no parameter detail beyond echoing offset progression, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Find' plus the resource ('cross-product source metadata, clocks, rights and next steps') gives a rough idea, but the domain language is opaque enough that an agent cannot confidently say what this tool returns. It does partially differentiate itself by naming the sibling market_corpus_context for local corpus counts.

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?

One explicit routing rule is given ('Use market_corpus_context for local corpus counts') and pagination guidance ('Follow next_offset'), which is more than nothing. However, there is no statement of when this tool itself is the right choice, nor any exclusions against the other 14 siblings.

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