Smart orchestrate (v7)

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

Discloses rich behavioral details beyond annotations: matched:false behavior, atomic set completeness, why_matched naming trigger tokens, and section_role necessity for Sales pages. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, and description adds significant context.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose, then dives into contract details. Slightly verbose with version-specific specifics, but still efficient. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

Covers behavioral contract and section_role guidance, but lacks explanation of the output format of suggested rules. Since there is no output schema, the description should describe what the tool returns; mentions why_matched and expected_document_shape but not the overall suggestion structure.

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?

While schema coverage is high (80%), the description adds value for section_role by emphasizing its necessity on Sales pages, but does not elaborate on unique_angle or intent_override beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 with marginal improvement.

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 suggests rules for a heading, and specifies it's a retriever+suggester not a decider. It includes contract details but could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gkb_query.

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?

Provides specific guidance on passing section_role for Sales/homepage sections, and mentions expected_document_shape. However, lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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