qc_copy_audit

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 mentions fetching a page and scanning visible text, but lacks details on how fetching works (e.g., rendering, rate limits) and error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Very concise and well-structured.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and the return format (occurrences with context). With no output schema, this suffices. However, it omits potential error scenarios or details on how the page is fetched. Still, it's largely complete for a simple audit tool.

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 100% but the description adds value by listing the default banned words (delve, tapestry, etc.), which is not in the schema. The url parameter description adds an example, slightly enhancing the schema's description.

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 the tool fetches a page and scans visible text for specific characters (em/en dashes) and banned words, returning occurrences with context. This is specific and distinct from any sibling tools.

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 implies usage: to audit a webpage for dashes and banned words. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given the lack of similar sibling tools.

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