summarize

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's mention of search/fetch adds modest context about external resource use. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations (e.g., rate limits, result truncation).

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 very concise (a single sentence) but packs four verbs without clear structure or separation. It could be improved by listing the steps more clearly or providing a brief format.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema description, many sibling tools), the description is too short. It does not explain the output format (though an output schema exists), the credibility assessment criteria, or how depth/engines affect results. Inadequate for confident use.

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%, meaning the JSON schema provides no descriptions for any of the 7 parameters. The tool description also fails to explain the meaning, usage, or constraints of parameters like 'depth', 'engines', or 'freshness'. This severely limits correct invocation.

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 lists four specific actions (search, fetch, extract key points, assess credibility) that the tool performs, making its purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like search or fetch by including extraction and credibility assessment.

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 implies the tool is for getting a synthesized, evaluated summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search or research. No when-not or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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