Whats This

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the underlying mechanism (looking words up in JMP's built-in context-help map), which hints at a non-full-text lookup. But it doesn't disclose failure behavior (no match found), result ranking, or exactness of matching. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-format ambiguity.

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?

Compact two-paragraph structure that front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and adds the mechanistic detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 straightforward two-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The mechanism is disclosed, parameters are documented, and return values are likely covered by the output schema. The main gap is usage differentiation against sibling search_jmp_docs, already noted.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already documents ui_element with a concrete example and k as 'Max matches' with default and bounds. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Explain'), a clear resource ('on-screen JMP element'), and a distinctive mechanism ('JMP's own context-help map'). This differentiates it from sibling search_jmp_docs by emphasizing a map-based lookup rather than document search, though it doesn't name alternatives 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 phrase 'on-screen JMP element' implies the intended scenario — the element must be visible in JMP. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the close sibling search_jmp_docs, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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