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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, consistent with a write that appends a new request each time — no contradiction. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the PII prohibition ('no names, emails, or other personal details') and the user-facing confirmation step. It does not discuss deduplication or what happens to the captured request downstream, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose, then the trigger, then the constraint, then the follow-up action. Efficient prose, though the enumerated category list is duplicated verbatim in the schema and could be trimmed.

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 simple two-parameter intake tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the scoping constraint, the privacy rule, and the required user-facing message. Nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so both `category` and `description` are already documented in the schema. The description largely echoes that content (the category list and the PII rule appear in both places), adding little new parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: record an unanswerable question so the capability can be built. An agent can immediately distinguish this fallback/escalation tool from siblings like affordability, buy_vs_rent, and analyze_address, which are actual analysis tools.

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 an explicit trigger — 'Call this whenever a user asks for something outside the current tools' coverage' — and enumerates concrete gap categories (rental metrics, Airbnb modeling, valuations, move-vs-stay, non-US). It also specifies the required follow-up action ('tell the user their request was captured'), removing ambiguity about post-call behavior.

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