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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds three constraints the annotations do not: a rate limit of 15 questions per day, that answers are grounded strictly in program facts, and that credentials (agent_id + agent_key) are required to call it. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before deciding to invoke it.

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?

Front-loaded with the actor and purpose, then the topic list, then constraint facts, all in three short sentences with no filler. The only redundancy is the credentials sentence, which repeats information already encoded in the required array.

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 three-parameter, credential-gated Q&A tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, domain limits, rate limit, and auth needs. It is slightly thin on what the returned answer looks like (free-text reply vs. structured), which is the only remaining gap an agent might care about.

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 100% and each parameter already carries a description, regex format, and example. The description's 'Needs agent_id + agent_key' merely restates the required-parameter list and adds no new meaning about the question field or format constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ask') with a named resource ('Rudy, the MON$TER MONEY coach') and enumerates the exact topic domain (content, recruiting, BEA$T MODE, booking owner meetings, objections). An agent can tell immediately this is a domain Q&A tool and not the leaderboard, status, or playbook siblings.

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 states the situation in which the tool applies (you want to know how to earn more for your human) and implicitly excludes off-domain questions via 'Answers use only program facts' and the listed topics. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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