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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent=false, openWorld=false and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: replies come back in English, source articles are attached as citations, and the tool degrades gracefully to a contact suggestion when no page matches confidently. It does not mention latency or rate limits, but for a read-only Q&A endpoint this is solid disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior (grounded answer + citations), followed by the language constraint and the fallback case. Each sentence contributes distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does its job of describing the return shape (answer plus attached source articles) and the no-match fallback. Combined with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling routing versus `search` is left unexplained.

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 a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example question, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the implicit expectation that the query is a natural-language question, which is close to baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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 and resource: a grounded natural-language answer generated over the chinaready.co corpus, with citations. It clearly reads as a RAG-style question-answering tool rather than a raw retrieval tool. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling `search`, so an agent must infer the split between 'ask a question' and 'run a keyword search'.

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 presence of a 'query' parameter framed as a question and the retrieval+generation framing suggest this is for natural-language questions rather than browsing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer `ask` over `search` or `get_article`, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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