knowledge

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 search action and domain, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any limitations, edge cases, or response behavior. Since it is a search tool, the core behavior is implied, but transparency is only adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and examples, followed by a concise usage pointer. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only search tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context for tool selection and invocation. It lacks details on return format and limit behavior, but the combination of purpose, usage guidance, and schema descriptions makes it reasonably complete.

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 75% (q, book, heading have descriptions; limit does not). The description adds valuable domain-specific vocabulary (GI tables, insulin math, carb counting) that helps the agent construct effective search terms for q, but does not clarify limit usage or other parameter nuances.

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 'Search installed T1D reference books' with specific topics (GI tables, insulin math, carb counting, recipes, meal planning), which precisely identifies the resource and differentiates it from generic sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_batch'.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks about nutrition science, insulin timing, or needs recipe ideas.' While it does not name alternative tools, the context strongly implies the intended use case and distinguishes it from general search.

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