summarize

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: a length cap on output and that summarization is extractive/grounded rather than knowledge-augmented; the bracketed tag hints that output is stochastic (non-deterministic), which is real behavioral signal. However, that tag is cryptic jargon, and nothing is said about long-input handling, failure modes, or cost.

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?

One sentence plus a short bracketed tag — front-loaded and free of padding. The tag itself is the only questionable element, since it spends words on opaque process metadata rather than tool behavior.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is the sole source of truth and is too thin. It never says what the return value looks like (plain string?), how max_sentences overrides the default cap, or how very long inputs are handled.

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 explain both parameters. It mentions the text input only obliquely and never explains max_sentences — no units, default, or how it interacts with the stated 'at most a few sentences' cap, which arguably conflicts with it. That leaves the only optional parameter's semantics entirely undefined.

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 names a specific verb (Summarize) and resource (a blob of text) and adds two scoping constraints: output is 'at most a few sentences' and the summary must use 'only the text itself.' That grounding constraint meaningfully separates it from siblings like extract_keywords or truncate, though the opening clause largely restates the tool name.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over siblings such as extract_keywords, truncate, or categorize, and no when-not guidance. The 'only the text itself' clause is an output constraint, not a routing rule, so an agent must infer selection context on its own.

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