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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, and openWorld safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the retrieval methodology (RAG over transcripts/summaries/spoken passages) and the return content (answer plus source media), plus the stateful follow-up behavior implied by conversationId.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the sibling routing rule and optional-parameter guidance. No filler; every sentence adds actionable information.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('Returns the answer plus the source media it drew from'). Along with the RAG source description and routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented, and the description's mentions of mediaIds and conversationId largely restate the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: asking a natural-language question and getting a synthesized answer grounded in analyzed media, with the RAG mechanism named (transcripts, summaries, spoken passages). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling echosaw_search_media by contrasting 'answer' vs 'ranked list'.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you want an answer rather than a ranked list') and names the alternative tool (echosaw_search_media) with its condition. It also clarifies optional usage: mediaIds to restrict scope, conversationId to continue a prior exchange.

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