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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the grounding sources, the suggested_actions output channel, the no-settings-mutation constraint, and the stateful thread semantics tied to workflow_id. It does not mention rate limits or answer latency, but for a read-only assistant call this is solid disclosure.

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 core purpose and then layered with grounding, routing, scope, and statefulness in five tight sentences; each sentence carries distinct information with no filler. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not padded.

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 read-only assistant tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, grounding, routing signal, scope limits, and conversational state, so return-value explanation is not needed. The one material omission is any guidance on context_hint, which an agent must set blind.

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 33%: only workflow_id carries a schema description. The description adds meaningful semantics for workflow_id ('pass back to continue the thread'), going beyond the schema's terse 'a workflow id this server returned earlier.' However, context_hint — an enum with seven values (general, account, assist, social, seo, persona, phone) — is never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving a real 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 (ask a question) and resource (this account / Xorventa), and explicitly scopes itself as a Q&A tool that 'does not change business or account settings', which cleanly separates it from mutating siblings like xora_change_settings, xora_publish_or_send, and xora_delete.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it answers questions grounded in the help library, Business Facts, and open work, and notes that registry actions matching the request surface as suggested_actions (an implicit routing cue). It also states the thread-continuation condition ('pass back workflow_id to continue it'). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use beyond the settings exclusion.

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