tag_analysis

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the empty-result outcome for untagged databases, but says nothing about permissions, whether filtering by owner_username requires a share relationship, or what the summary contains.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then the key caveat, then a compact Args list. Nothing is padded, though the Args block is essentially a plain list rather than prose that adds interpretation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. With five parameters at 0% schema coverage, the glosses plus the inline-tagging caveat cover most of what an agent needs; only the meaning of target and the sharing/permission model for owner_username are left implicit.

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 and largely does: it glosses db, query (including the '.all' sentinel), corpus (including '[ALL]'), target's two allowed values, and owner_username's conditional relevance. The target values remain opaque ('OPEN' vs 'USER' is not explained), leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Summarize the DocuXML tags ... in a query's hits') and enumerates what counts as a tag (people, places, dates, custom markup). An agent can distinguish it from list_databases or search_documents by resource, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 second sentence gives a real exclusion condition: 'Only meaningful for databases whose documents carry inline tagging; returns an empty result otherwise.' That tells the agent when not to expect value, but it never names an alternative tool for untagged databases or non-tag analyses.

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