buygit_explain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying model (Claude Haiku 4.5), the API key requirement, and the error behavior when the key is missing. This adds important behavioral context beyond basic read/write safety. A minor gap is no mention of rate limits or response format details, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and then provide usage guidance. Every part earns its place; no redundant or vague language.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, 1 required, enums, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage sequence, prerequisite (API key), and error handling. The output schema likely documents return values, so that gap is acceptable. A small improvement would be adding a brief note on what each focus option does, but overall adequate.

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. The description implies the 'slug' parameter (the listing identifier) and the focus areas (license, risk, usage) but does not explicitly describe each parameter or their formats. The focus enum values are hinted but not elaborated. This adds some value but not enough to fully cover the undocumented parameters.

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 it provides an 'AI-summarised explanation of a BuyGit listing (license + risk + how to use)', specifying a specific verb, resource, and output coverage. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like buygit_get_listing by offering a digest versus raw fields.

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 explicitly says 'Use after buygit_get_listing when the user wants a plain-English digest instead of raw fields', providing clear when-to-use and referencing a specific sibling. It also notes the dependence on ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and the structured error when unset, covering prerequisites.

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