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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description's job is to add what they cannot: it details the response composition (claims with verification states and evidence ids, unknowns, cited records, follow-ups) and sets explicit output boundaries (no valuations, no action recommendations). This is substantive behavioral context, not repetition.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return contract, then the negative boundaries. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description's enumeration of return fields is essential and well done, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is slightly incomplete on when to prefer this over sibling retrieval/verification tools and on the question parameter's semantics.

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 50%: asset_id carries a rich format description, but question has no description and only a maxLength constraint. The tool description adds nothing about parameter semantics — not the accepted asset_id forms, not the 500-character question limit or what makes a good question — so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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 (ask) and resource (a question about one asset) plus the exact scope: single-asset, question-driven. The enumerated return shape (answer, claims, unknowns, evidence, follow-ups) makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like ruthven_get_evidence or ruthven_verify_claim, which return raw records or verification results rather than synthesized answers.

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 'one asset' scope implies when this is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over ruthven_get_asset, ruthven_get_evidence, or ruthven_verify_claim. The boundary statements ('never a valuation; never a recommendation to act') constrain output but do not route the agent among alternatives.

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