Signature for a byte range

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

readOnlyHint is already declared by annotations, so safety is covered; the description adds the crucial behavioral caveat that this does NOT guarantee uniqueness, unlike make_signature, plus that operands are optionally wildcarded. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about output content or wildcard effects on matching reliability.

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, zero waste: the action and its scope come first, the key differentiator immediately after. 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?

For a read-only signature generator with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, the uniqueness caveat, and the sibling relationship. It is essentially complete; only minor questions (what the signature output looks like, whether wildcarding affects uniqueness) remain, and the output schema covers returns.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including wildcard_operands and format defaults. The description only gestures at 'optional operand wildcarding', which maps loosely to wildcard_operands but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a byte signature') scoped to an address range, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling make_signature by naming it and contrasting their behavior. An agent can tell this apart from make_signature without opening a schema.

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 a concrete use context ('a selected region', i.e. an arbitrary byte range) and names the alternative make_signature with the condition distinguishing them (uniqueness guarantee). It does not address make_signature_for_function, the other close sibling, but the range-vs-function split is implied clearly enough.

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