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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful traits: it caps results at 1–3, returns only the first answer per guide, and warns that content is community guidance rather than official support. This contextualizes trust and result shape beyond the structured annotations.

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 short sentences front-load the main action and cap count, then specify output fields and authority. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler or schema repetition.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the output structure (URL, short answer, section, sources) and result count. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret its response.

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 single required parameter is already fully documented in the schema with a defined description and examples, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'Describe a Grok Bot problem' restates the parameter's purpose but adds no new semantic detail beyond the 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a concrete verb-resource pair ('Describe a Grok Bot problem') and states the exact deliverable: 1–3 relevant Fix problems guides with their first answer. This scope, including result fields, clearly separates it from generic sibling search tools without needing to open their 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?

'Describe a Grok Bot problem' provides a clear when-to-use trigger: natural-language symptom descriptions rather than keyword lookup. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use the tool, but the 'Community guidance, not official support' line adds a meaningful boundary.

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