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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, yet the description still adds that 'It records nothing' and explains how each response branch should be handled. The four-state enumeration is genuinely behavioral, though it overlaps with the output schema that already exists.

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 trigger first, then the parameter, then the outcome taxonomy, then a closing non-mutation note. Dense and nearly waste-free; the final 'It records nothing' sentence is partly redundant with readOnlyHint but is short enough to earn its place.

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 one-parameter routing tool with an output schema, this covers trigger, parameter hygiene and every response branch an agent must act on. Nothing needed to call 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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: `ask` is 'what they want, in a few words (no names or contact details)'. The privacy constraint is concrete, but the phrasing format is only loosely specified ('in a few words').

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 names a precise trigger ('when the person asks for something you have no STEMPA tool for') and enumerates the four answer states (available, plan_gated, blocked_by_rule, not_a_feature). That distinguishes it cleanly from every sibling: it is the fallback router, not a grilling, briefing or profile tool.

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 usage condition is stated as an explicit exclusion ('no STEMPA tool for'), which implies existing tools take precedence, and it describes what to do with each outcome ('say them once' for plan/price/link; offer to log a feature request for not_a_feature). Little is left to inference.

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