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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: answers are grounded in the document, pages are cited, and 'verified: false' marks quotes that could not be found in the page text.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with zero waste. The second sentence efficiently explains the quote-verification semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover safety semantics, and the schema documents file selection well. The description supplies the core behavior and verification detail; it could clarify sibling alternatives or single-document scope, but nothing essential is missing.

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 80%, and the schema itself distinguishes file, file_id, file_url, and library_file_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Answer a question') and resource ('the document'), and adds grounding/citation scope. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings such as summarize_pdf or search_docs, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

It implies grounded document Q&A and constrains answers to the document only, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tool recommendation. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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