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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it excludes expired, retired, superseded, and contradicted knowledge, and labels the operation as deterministic. It also communicates that results are suggestions requiring adaptation and review, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states the action, constraints, and bound; the second adds exclusions and the review caveat. Every phrase contributes to selection or correct invocation.

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?

Covers the core workflow: lookup, filtering criteria, determinism, and the need to adapt and review results. It lacks explicit return-format or sorting details, but for a bounded read-only lookup the available guidance is sufficiently 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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the limit semantics ('up to 20'), the scope role of projectId ('scope-compatible'), and the question's function ('current requirement'). It still doesn't explicitly describe defaults or phrasing requirements, but adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Find'), a bounded result count ('up to 20'), and a clear resource ('reusable answers') with strong qualifying constraints ('current, explicitly approved and scope-compatible'). This distinguishes it from mutation or questionnaire-related siblings by describing a read-only suggestion lookup.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: use it to retrieve reusable answer candidates, adapt them to the current requirement, and then review them separately. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer sibling tools or state when-not-to-use cases, but the intended use is clear.

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