find_concordances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'JSON string containing concordance results,' which adds some context about output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details and return information. Each sentence adds value, and there's no redundant or verbose content. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing key usage, but overall it's efficient.

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 tool has an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement) and no annotations, the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters, and return format. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and sibling tools that might cause confusion, it lacks context on differentiation, error cases, or behavioral nuances. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly explains all four parameters, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies the purpose of 'urn' and 'word' as required, and provides default values and intent for 'window' and 'limit'. However, it doesn't elaborate on URN format, word case-sensitivity, or constraints, leaving some semantic gaps.

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's purpose: 'Find concordances (contexts) for a word in a specific document.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('concordances'), and scope ('for a word in a specific document'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'word_concordance' or 'search_texts', which appear related, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'word_concordance' and 'search_texts' that might overlap in functionality, there's no mention of specific contexts, exclusions, or comparisons. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, lacking explicit direction.

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