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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that question text is logged for improvement (no other personal data), but does not mention other behaviors like rate limits, authentication, or response format. The logging disclosure is helpful but incomplete for a full understanding of behavior.

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 two short paragraphs, each serving a distinct purpose (usage guidance and data transparency). No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 Q&A tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the domain, usage context, and a data handling note. It lacks explicit detail about the response format (e.g., 'points to where to go next' is vague), but overall it's sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'question', and the schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds the phrase 'in the user's own words,' which clarifies the input format but adds little beyond the parameter name. For a simple string param, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states the tool queries Wiremi about ROSCAs, savings circles, the Wiremi Passport, or how Wiremi works, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by saying 'Use this when the other tools do not exactly match what the user asked.' The verb 'Ask' and resource 'Wiremi' are specific.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the other tools do not exactly match what the user asked.' It implies the tool is a fallback for general questions, but doesn't explicitly list when not to use it beyond that.

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