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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each result carries the note's own limits, which is useful context. However, it does not state read-only behavior, query/locale semantics, or result format.

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 front-loaded and readable, but the list of example questions and the repeated emphasis on evidence make it longer than strictly necessary. Still, each sentence carries some purpose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves important gaps: parameter semantics, optional-parameter behavior, and return shape. It provides usage guidance and a caveat, but an agent needs more to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the query or locale parameters. 'Question' is referenced conceptually, but there is no mapping to the parameter names, types, or expected values, so the description adds no parameter meaning.

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 identifies the resource as VOLO's long-form notes/evidence for big-picture questions and distinguishes these from occupation-specific notes. The verb is indirect ('Call this FIRST' rather than 'search' or 'get'), but the resource and scope are clear.

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?

It explicitly says to call this first for questions about the whole picture rather than one occupation, and warns that these are questions an agent might otherwise answer without evidence. It implies exclusion of occupation-specific queries, though it does not name sibling alternatives.

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