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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values ('Returns answer, anonymised role, confidence, first-hand flag'), the certification process ('Approved answers get an on-chain Taste cert'), and timing/domain availability ('Listed domains... Other domains: best-effort 24-48h'). This is substantial behavioral context, though it omits details like authentication or cost.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The domain list is necessary and efficiently presented. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, output schema present), the description covers core behavior, return fields, domain constraints, and follow-up rules. It does not explicitly address result retrieval or differentiate from similar siblings, but the output schema and existing context signals mitigate those gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying `domain` semantics (listed vs. best-effort domains) and `parentSessionId` follow-up cap, which are practical nuances not fully captured in the field descriptions alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'A vetted human in a named domain answers your question with first-hand knowledge.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_a_human by emphasizing domain-specific, vetted experts and listing concrete domains.

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 gives clear usage instructions: 'Pass `domain` to match an expert' and 'Pass `parentSessionId` for follow-ups (cap 3).' It also explains behavior for listed vs. other domains ('Other domains: best-effort 24-48h'), which helps decide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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