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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return format ('markdown with the source page') and the grounding behavior (verified facts + own pages), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

One compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by sourcing and return format. The parenthetical URL equivalence is a slight detour but is informative rather than filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, where answers come from, and what is returned (markdown plus source). Minor gaps remain — behavior for unanswerable questions and freshness/caching — but nothing essential to invoking 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 100% and the schema example already documents the question parameter. The description still adds a little semantic framing — that the question is plain-language and maps to a hyphenated URL path — which clarifies input expectations beyond the raw type.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it answers a plain-language question about Com.Bot and explains the source (verified facts and its own pages). It distinguishes itself implicitly from sibling lookups like get_brand_facts and search_site by being a natural-language Q&A entry point, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is the tool for free-form questions versus the other fact/page/pricing getters, and the note that it equals fetching com.bot/{question-with-hyphens} hints at an overlap with get_page. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing guidance against the five siblings.

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