Explain a VR / AR / XR topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool returns a canonical answer and link, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like error handling, latency, or limitations. 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and examples. It could be slightly more scannable (e.g., separate lines) but is otherwise concise and front-loaded.

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 states it returns 'a canonical VR.org answer and the authoritative pillar-page link,' which provides a reasonable expectation of the output. It does not detail the exact format, but for a simple tool this is largely sufficient.

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% with a clear description of the 'topic' parameter. The description provides similar examples to the schema, adding marginal value. Hence, baseline score of 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 the tool returns a canonical VR.org answer and a pillar-page link for common VR/AR/XR questions. Examples are provided (e.g., 'what is vr', 'best headset'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like compare_vr_headsets or search_vr_news.

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 usage for common questions and gives example topics. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or what alternatives exist. Given the sibling list, the context is clear but not spelled out.

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