quote

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

With no annotations, the description should reveal behavior. It states what the tool does but does not disclose matching rules (case sensitivity, partial matches), error handling (e.g., text not found), or side effects. Returns tick range but format unspecified.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing output) without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the return format, ordering of results, or behavior when no match is found – critical for correct agent invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides – baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Locate') and resource ('something said in a source') and clearly states the output ('get the tick range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hear' (listen) or 'caption' (transcribe).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'hear' for listening, 'inspect' for metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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