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 does disclose a useful non-obvious behavior: omitting brain_id defaults to the workspace's Brain. But it does not disclose output shape, failure behavior, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the word 'retrieve'.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key behavioral detail about the default brain. No filler or redundancy.

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 query tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the action, the input, and the brain-selection default. Since no output schema exists, a note on the returned product-context structure would help, but the low parameter complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'question' is the query and 'brain_id' is optional with a workspace fallback. However, it gives no format, type hints, or examples, so it only partially compensates.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('a Brain') and purpose ('for a question'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_brains, which list brains rather than retrieve context from a specific brain.

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 implies usage context by explaining the workspace-brain default when brain_id is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_brains, or when this tool would not be appropriate.

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