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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: evidence tiers with confidence rules (three agreeing installs for observed facts), build stamps for unconfirmed game-file facts, lore caveats, and the disclosure that further-reading links are search URLs and nothing is fetched. It also documents a degradation mode ('when Everloot's public player data is not connected, the observed layer is unrecorded, not empty'), which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing ordering or truncation behavior when the limit caps results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by evidence types, then routing guidance — a sensible order. It is dense but almost every clause carries distinct information; the tier-definition sentence is long and could be split for readability, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be restated, and the description still explains what each returned piece carries (claim, source URL, licence, date). For a citation-oriented retrieval tool, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters are documented there (question with length bounds and spelling guidance, limit with default 8 and range 1-25). The description does not add syntax or format meaning for either, aside from implying that the question drives which evidence layers are consulted. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('returns the evidence behind a question about WoW: Forever') and immediately states the downstream use (so an answer can cite it). It enumerates the evidence types returned, which makes it easy to distinguish from siblings that return entities rather than citations.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use it for questions that need citations, such as why, where or how many', then names two alternatives — search_knowledge for finding a record by name and item_page/npc_page/quest_page for one entity's agreed facts. This gives both positive and negative selection conditions.

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