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

The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it depends on a configured AI assistantwhere results are prose-like and includes a verdict, parts analysis, rewrite, and coaching line. It does not fully specify how the 'context' is sourced or how variable the AI output may be, but the openWorldHint partly covers that.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states what the tool does and returns, second sentence gives routing guidance, third states the dependency. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with a single string parameter and no output schema, the description provides strong context: output contents, sibling distinction, and availability condition. The only slight gap is that 'in context' is not fully explained—what specific context the AI assistant uses is left implicit—but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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 input schema only defines `ask` as a required string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates implicitly by referring to 'one dealership appointment ask' and 'a tailored rewrite in the rep's voice,' making it clear that `ask` is the draft text to be reviewed. However, it does not explicitly define expected length, format, or examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'review one dealership appointment ask in context' using the configured AI assistant. It also differentiates itself from the sibling check_appointment_ask by contrasting prose coaching output with deterministic scoring, so an agent can identify the intended purpose immediately.

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 explicitly says when to choose it ('Choose this for phrasing and coaching') and when not to, naming check_appointment_ask as the alternative for deterministic six-part scoring. It also includes a clear preconditions warning: 'Available only when an assistant provider is configured.'

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