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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: answers stay grounded in the store's facts, claims are linked to their sources, the answer is checked against those facts, and nothing is stored. The four-state lifecycle is also disclosed. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot express.

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 dense and front-loaded: the core behavior comes first, then the storage guarantee, then the state enumeration. The phrasing of the state list is slightly compressed, as each state name is followed by its action, but no sentence is wasted.

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 state machine description carries the return-value burden, and it does so adequately. One gap for a tool with idempotentHint=false: it does not say whether asking again creates a new step or resumes an existing one, which matters for retry decisions.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the explain-what-the-store-link-format-is detail and the default FactoGraph guide store. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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?

A specific verb and resource ('Ask a question' of a 'store') plus a precise behavior: the store answers only from its facts with each claim linked. The state vocabulary (waiting/running/done/failed) contrasts this tool with siblings getStep and replyToPrompt, so an agent can tell which one handles each phase.

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 names the next action for each returned state: replyToPrompt when waiting, getStep when running, follow `next` when done. That is concrete routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to avoid calling ask (for example, when a step is already in flight) and does not set any preconditions.

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