Grounded Chapter Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it retrieves evidence for a structured summary, which is somewhat consistent with the read-only nature. However, it does not disclose return format, how evidence is grounded, or how parameters like 'top' and 'candidates' affect behavior.

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?

The description is a single, grammatical sentence with no wasted words, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the main verb. However, for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions, the sentence is arguably under-sized, though this is more a completeness issue than a structural flaw.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, yet the description only states 'Retrieve evidence for a structured chapter or topic summary.' It does not explain what the output looks like, how parameters modify behavior, or any prerequisites. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct arguments.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'chapterOrTopic' is the topic to summarize, but provides no meaning for 'top', 'emphasis', or 'candidates'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 states 'Retrieve evidence for a structured chapter or topic summary,' which clearly identifies the action (retrieve evidence) and the resource (a structured summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rag_query by focusing on chapter/topic summaries, though it could be more explicit about whether it generates a summary or just returns evidence.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rag_query or textbook_qa. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or complementary tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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