bni_chapter_gaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the tool's actions: lists counts, identifies gaps, resolves names, applies a ~250-result cap, and highlights the German-only taxonomy and language mismatch issue. It also clarifies that unmatched professions are often not data errors. This is exceptional transparency for a read/analysis tool, covering all significant behaviors and edge cases.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence contributes critical information. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by operational details (name resolution, cap, language caveat). It avoids fluff and is well-structured, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 complexity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the analysis approach, the resolution process, the cap, and the language handling. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the description implies it lists professions and counts and identifies gaps, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. Minor omissions like pagination details are acceptable given the level of context provided.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: it explains that chapterName is used as a search keyword after resolution via bni_list_chapters, and that the exact name reduces collision risk. It also adds context about country being a two-letter code without repeating the schema. This exceeds the baseline by providing practical usage nuance.

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 a specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('a chapter'), and specifies what it produces: existing professions with counts and identified whitespace based on the BNI taxonomy. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bni_chapter_members or bni_search by focusing on profession gap analysis rather than membership lists or general search. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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 context by explaining it resolves the chapter name via bni_list_chapters and notes the search cap, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use this when you need to find profession gaps' or 'not for member counts'). It gives process hints but not explicit when/when-not guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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