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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the output nature (passages plus explicit evidence gaps) and one important non-behavior (no unsupported advice). It omits what happens when no evidence exists, whether results are ranked or paginated, and any source/recency constraints, which matter for a retrieval tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the key constraint. Every sentence 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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and output type but not return shape, the meaning of `limit`, or failure behavior. The freshwater/fishing-site scope appears only in the title, not the description, so the description alone is only marginally complete.

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 0%, so nothing documents the parameters except the prose. The description implies the domain of `question` ('a fishing question') but says nothing about its length, phrasing expectations, or what `limit` (1-10, default 5) controls — number of passages, gaps, or sources. The compensation for the coverage gap is thin.

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 states a specific verb and output type: 'return source-grounded passages and evidence gaps' for a fishing question, and the negation 'does not generate unsupported fishing advice' implicitly contrasts it with advice-generating siblings such as answer_public_question. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. search_fishing_knowledge) explicitly, so differentiation still requires inference.

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?

'Does not generate unsupported fishing advice' hints at the usage boundary: call this when you need evidence rather than a synthesized answer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to search_fishing_knowledge or answer_public_question, leaving the agent to infer routing from the sibling names.

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