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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the attached widget shows only sources, not the answer, so the agent must relay the answer text itself. That is a valuable disclosure beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about latency, rate limits, or result scope.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one critical operational caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the key interaction quirk. The remaining gap is parameter meaning for 'query', which is left entirely to the schema — and the schema does not document it.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'mode' has a description, but 'query' — the sole required parameter — has none. The description implies the query concerns workspaces/websites but adds no meaning about query format, scope, or what 'mode' values beyond the example do, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: ask a question about the user's connected workspaces and websites, returning a cited answer. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_context or get_memory, which sound similarly retrieval-oriented.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain ('connected workspaces and websites'), which separates it from save_memory, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for other retrieval needs.

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