Map a Challenge Across Toolbox Lenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: relevance is 'lexical and relational, not prescriptive.' Still, it omits details about output format, grouping, ordering, or how 'source-grounded' is enforced, so coverage is only partial.

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 exactly two sentences, each earning its place: the first specifies the verb and the resource, and the second clarifies the relevance mechanism. It does not repeat the title or waste words on obvious details.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It tells what kinds of items are surfaced, but it doesn't describe the response structure, how results relate to 'toolbox lenses,' or how max_per_type affects the output, so an agent may still be uncertain about the full invocation contract.

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 input schema documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Surface source-grounded questions, values, principles, solutions, and stories relevant to a challenge.' The phrase 'not prescriptive' hints at differentiation from other tools, but it doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when to use the tool—when exploring a challenge across toolbox lenses—and the 'not prescriptive' clause suggests it is not for generating definitive answers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer from the title and sibling list.

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