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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it answers from live measured returns and real backtests rather than promises, it shares the same answer as a listed endpoint, and it has a defined confidence threshold below which it would rather not guess. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and scope with examples, the second gives an endpoint equivalence, and the third covers confidence behavior and the alternative. Each sentence earns its place and the key 'no key needed' constraint is front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple question-answer tool: it covers auth needs, scope, and confidence behavior, and the schema fully documents parameters. The only gap is that with no output schema, the exact response shape is not described, though 'Same answer' implies the content type is an answer.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully (question and optional session_id), and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to repeat parameter details; it adds context about question topics but no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('EventTrader's AI agent NEXUS'), and clearly scopes it to platform questions. It also distinguishes itself by noting 'no key needed' and references ask_nexus_deep as the deeper alternative, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 gives explicit use cases (returns, features, rules, registration, deposits, trading, cloning) and an explicit routing rule: when confidence is below 0.7 and an API key is available, use ask_nexus_deep for a full investigation. It also states that this tool needs no key, directly addressing the alternative.

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