get_ddb_snippets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly indicates a non-destructive read operation by stating 'Find' and 'Returns'. It explains the output format (pages with snippets in {braces}) but does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, which is a minor gap for complete 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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose, followed by a clear arg/return list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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's simplicity (two string params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how to use the parameters, and what the output looks like. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: 'identifier' is explained as a page id ('ITEMID-pagename') or issue item id ('ITEMID'), and 'query' is described as a Solr query over page OCR text. This goes well beyond the bare schema types, compensating fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 finds where a query appears inside one page or one whole issue. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('page' or 'issue'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_ddb (likely broader search) and download_ddb_text (download full text) by focusing on snippet extraction within a specific identifier.

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 when you have a page or issue identifier and want OCR snippets, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool's specific functionality.

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