help

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses the two response modes (card vs. guide) and states that a tool name yields its complete flag reference, which is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema. It also proactively suppresses unnecessary calls, reducing wasted round trips. It does not say the output is plain text vs. structured or whether the guide is long, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary behavior and the default (no topic), then the value space, then the guardrails. The long topic enumeration is necessary but makes the middle a comma wall that is slower to scan than a list. Every sentence still carries information, so it is efficient, just dense.

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, no-side-effect lookup with no output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, default behavior, and the full value space. The only gap is what the returned guide/card actually looks like and how large it is, which matters if an agent is weighing whether to call it mid-task.

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 100% but defines no enum, leaving 'topic' effectively unbounded. The description supplies the actual accepted space — ~20 named topics plus the rule that any tool name is valid for flag reference — which the schema cannot convey. This is exactly the kind of additive semantic guidance the description should carry.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Usage guides') and explains the two operating modes: no topic returns a root decision card, a topic returns that guide. 'Root decision card' is slightly internal jargon, but combined with the topic list an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns, distinct from every sibling.

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?

Explicitly scopes use to 'specialized work or an unclear command shape only' and names two exclusions: not a startup step, and not needed after an error that already carries a hint. That is a precise when/when-not with an implied alternative (rely on the hint instead).

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