Create a topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the web search + LLM mechanism, approximate latency (~15s), the fallback to an existing article, and the daily rate limit. This gives the agent essential expectations about cost, behavior on duplicates, and operational constraints.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences convey the core operation, key constraints, latency, duplicate behavior, and a usage hint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavioral context: creation method, latency, rate limit, and duplicate handling. It does not describe the exact return value shape, but since no output schema exists, a small gap remains.

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 already documents the single 'title' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond restating that the tool creates from a title, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Generate a new sourced encyclopedia article from a title') and distinguishes it from read/search/discover sibling tools. It also reveals the duplicate-handling behavior, making the tool's exact purpose 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 gives strong usage context: use this to create articles, avoid calling when the topic already exists, and search first due to the daily rate limit. It does not explicitly name 'search_topics' as the alternative, but the instruction to search first effectively routes the agent to the right sibling tool.

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