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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return nature (passages plus canonical citations, no synthesized advice), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about read-only behavior, result ordering, or how many passages come back relative to the limit parameter.

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 sentences, both earning their place, with the core action stated first and the output contract immediately after. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what comes back (evidence and citations) and that answers are not generated. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter and result-count behavior.

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 coverage is 50% — 'question' is documented, 'limit' is not. The description reinforces that the question must be natural-language free text (adding meaning beyond the bare schema text), but it never mentions the limit parameter or its 1–10 default-5 range, leaving half the parameters unexplained in both places.

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 (find source passages) and narrows the domain to natural-language freshwater fishing questions. The clause 'Returns evidence and canonical citations, not generated advice' implicitly distinguishes it from get_fishing_guidance and search_articles, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly signals the use case: answer factual fishing questions with cited evidence rather than advice. The 'not generated advice' contrast effectively routes the agent away from advice-generating siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly and no when-not conditions (e.g., product lookups, article discovery) are stated.

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