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 only states the basic action ('Chat') and includes an example request, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in AI interactions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example request is relevant but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the formatting as a code block might slightly affect readability.

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 complexity of an AI chat tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 fully documents both parameters ('message' and 'context'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by showing an example request, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Chat with Glean Assistant using Glean's RAG.' It specifies the verb ('Chat') and resource ('Glean Assistant'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'company_search' or 'people_profile_search', which are search-focused rather than conversational AI interactions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of sibling tools or scenarios where this chat tool is preferred over search tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Find[s] relevant company documents and data', which implies a read-only search operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. The example adds some context but is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a helpful example. However, the example is formatted as a code block, which adds visual clutter but doesn't detract significantly from clarity. It's efficient with no redundant information.

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 as a search function with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage guidelines, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly. The example provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing structured data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'datasources') with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema through the example, which shows usage but doesn't explain parameter semantics further. This meets the baseline for 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 the tool's purpose as 'Find relevant company documents and data', which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the resource ('company documents and data') but lacks a precise verb beyond 'Find' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'chat' or 'people_profile_search'. The example helps but doesn't fully clarify the scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'chat' or 'people_profile_search'. It includes an example that implies usage for querying company information, but there are no explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching but doesn't describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond 'pageSize', rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large result sets. The example shows a request format but lacks operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The example request is relevant but could be more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the example takes up space without adding significant guidance.

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 complexity of a search tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, and behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the missing contextual details needed for effective tool use.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds an example that illustrates usage but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The example clarifies the structure of 'filters' as an object, but this is implied by the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for people profiles in the company.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('people profiles'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'chat' and 'company_search' by focusing on people profiles rather than chat or company data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools beyond the resource scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'company_search' or explain scenarios where one might be preferred over the other. The example request is helpful for syntax but doesn't offer usage context or exclusions.

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