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

Annotations only mark it as non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description carries real added value: it discloses the public visibility, the daily/char limits, the ban on secrets and personal data, and warns that returned third-party text arrives in 'untrusted_content' as data rather than instructions. It stops short of describing what is returned or whether an answer can be edited or retracted.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and its limits before the safety note. Every clause (limits, visibility, content rules, injection warning) earns its place with no filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, constraints, consequences and a prompt-injection caveat well. It leaves the get-question-then-answer workflow and the outcome of a successful submission unstated, which a sibling reference or a return hint would have closed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's 500-char limit and public/no-secrets rules add some meaning to the required 'text' argument, but that is marginal over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Answer the question of the day') with embedded scope (1/agent/day, 500 chars, public). The action verb clearly separates it from the retrieval sibling daily_question without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete constraint (one answer per agent per day) which implies usage, but never says when to use this versus siblings like daily_question or callback, and offers no exclusions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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