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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool returns passages, not a finished answer, and explains how to handle version-pinned passages, conflicts, URL citations, and release notes ordering. This goes well beyond a generic 'read-only' trait.

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 front-loads the purpose and then gives the essential behavior instructions without much wasted space. It is longer than strictly needed, but each sentence contributes a distinct operational decision for the agent.

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 tool with no output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool and interpret its response. It explains the shape of the result (passages, blocks), version semantics, conflict handling, citation requirements, and the ordering of release notes. Nothing that the agent needs to decide correctly is left unstated.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single 'question' parameter as 'Your question'. The description reinforces that the question is natural language and that the answer is synthesized across sources, but it adds no additional constraints or nuances about parameter semantics. At 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 takes a natural language question and returns an answer synthesized from all connected sources. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the verb 'ask' and the scope 'all connected sources' make the purpose sufficiently distinctive.

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 tool only implies when to use it ('Ask a natural language question...') without comparing it to siblings like search_docs or query_source. The rest of the description focuses on result interpretation (version-pinned passages, conflict resolution, release notes) rather than when this tool should be selected. There is no guidance on when not to use it or what edge cases might be better served by another tool.

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