snap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the content-addressed storage model (bytes keyed by sha256), which implies snapshot reuse/dedup, but says nothing about retention, size limits, or failure behavior for unreachable URLs. The 'store' parameter's effect is left undisclosed.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and the call-before-quoting precondition front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The workflow guidance is solid for a tool with no output schema, but with two parameters at zero schema coverage and no explanation of the optional 'store' argument, an agent cannot confidently invoke it beyond the simplest case.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies 'urls' is what gets snapshotted but never says it accepts multiple URLs, and it is entirely silent on the 'store' parameter, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Snapshot URLs') plus the storage model ('bytes by sha256') and the downstream purpose (quotes can be taken from and checked against them). It orients the agent against the source_text sibling via the quoting workflow, though it does not distinguish itself from verify_report or summary.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition and sequencing: 'Call it before quoting a page, then copy the words from source_text.' That is actionable when-to-use guidance tied to a sibling tool, but there is no statement of when not to use it or of alternatives for non-quoting scenarios.

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