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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that questions are stored in full, details what other data is recorded, and instructs the agent to answer only from returned passages. This is substantial behavioral context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then clarifies the response format, and ends with a crucial privacy note. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy, striking an excellent balance between detail and brevity.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value, usage constraints, and privacy implications. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and the sibling tools do not weaken this completeness.

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 schema covers the single parameter fully ('The question, in the asker's own words'), but the description adds value by specifying acceptable topics and privacy restrictions, enriching the parameter's meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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' with a clear resource 'Gus Dantas', enumerates example topics, and states the return value ('relevant passages he has written'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like gus_profile or retail_media_primer.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (any question about Gus) and offers an alternative (ghostavo.com) for privacy-conscious users. It also warns against confidential information, giving some exclusion criteria, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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