segment

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds one meaningful trait — that ids are 'stable' (reusable across calls, e.g. for overrides) and that results carry 'detection signals' — but says nothing about pagination, the ~8,000-byte cap, or how detection signals are shaped.

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?

It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than well-structured — there is no front-loaded verb and the two halves are joined by an unexplained 'or'.

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?

This is a complex tool (9 params, nested profile, overrides) with no output schema, so the description should carry return-value information. It never explains what a 'detection signal' or a segment record looks like, nor how cursor/limit interact with the byte cap, leaving the output contract unexplained.

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 schema fully documents the 9 parameters including the nested profile object. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond implying the unit values, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resources it produces (chapters, scenes, sentences, dialogue lines) and distinguishes them via 'stable ids and detection signals,' but it is a noun fragment with no explicit verb — the agent must infer that it lists/segments a document. It also fails to differentiate itself from plausible siblings like outline, paragraphs_list, or sections_list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to guess whether this or outline/sections_list is the right tool for a given segmentation need.

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