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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond them — 'It answers right away' — which tells the agent this is a synchronous Q&A rather than an async request that would need check_reply. It stops short of describing response shape or limits, so not a 5.

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, zero filler. The capability statement comes first, the timing note second, and the routing rule last — front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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, read-only conversational tool with no output schema, the description covers topics, immediacy, and routing adequately. The only gap is that it never hints at what the answer looks like (free text, structured fields), which matters slightly more here because no output schema exists to carry that burden.

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% for the single 'question' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by enumerating what the question can be about (brand, sizing, made-to-order timing, custom kit, brainstorming), which sharpens how the agent should phrase the input beyond the schema's generic 'What you want to ask or discuss.'

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 ('Talk to Corbah's agent') and enumerates the domains it covers (brand, designs, sizing, made-to-order timing, custom kit, ideation). The final sentence explicitly separates it from send_message and commission_design, so an agent can route correctly without opening any sibling 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 both sides of the routing decision: use this for questions/discussion, and use send_message or commission_design for 'anything Jon needs to act on.' That is an explicit when/when-not with named alternatives, which is the top of the scale.

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