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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses semantic retrieval (embedding similarity), the exact nature of returned content (memo sections, weekly reading, five recent events), the citation requirement, and that question text may be logged. This is transparent about behavior, though it does not explicitly state side effects like query limits or whether it is read-only, which is implied.

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 two sentences, which is efficient and front-loads the core purpose first. The second sentence packs retrieval details and a logging note without fluff. It could be slightly tighter, but it 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, retrieval behavior, expected output types, and a usage pitfall (logging). It does not describe the exact output structure, but since output schema is absent, the description gives enough to know what to expect. Missing details like error handling are minor for this simplicity.

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 describes the sole parameter 'question' as 'Your question about the brief' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little new semantic about the parameter itself; it only mentions that the question may be logged, which is behavioral rather than parameter-specific. It does not clarify constraints like length or format.

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 verb 'Ask a question' and the resource 'Blast Radius brief and its recent news', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get' tools by being a question-answering tool, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 get_top_headlines or get_thesis. It implies usage for asking questions but gives no exclusions or conditional advice, leaving the choice to inference.

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