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

Annotations already disclose read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond them by explaining that cited paths resolve through the pinned manifest and that content excerpts are verified as substrings of the artifact. It also makes the cited versus uncited return distinction clear.

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 fairly short and front-loaded, but it contains a redundant Returns: sentence and an unhelpful or invalid invocation example. Each sentence adds some context, but the structure would benefit from removing the repetition and fixing the example.

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 two-parameter, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: return shape, verification guarantees, repo filtering semantics, and no destructive behavior. It does not explain empty-result behavior or question revision, but those are not necessary for this complexity level.

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?

With no schema description coverage, the description compensates partially: repo is explained as a filter on manifest entries, and question is clearly the corpus question. However, the example of calling with empty arguments conflicts with the required question parameter, which makes the usage guidance misleading in an important spot.

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 identifies the verb and resource: ask the corpus a question. It also gives the result shape with cited or uncited outcomes, which makes its purpose concrete and reasonably distinct from sibling corpus comparison and probing tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the main use case: query the corpus, optionally restricted to a single repository. However, it does not say when to choose this over the sibling introspection corpus tools, nor does it state when this tool should not be used.

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