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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that source validity, owner, scope, and contradictions are checked live, and that includeHistory returns non-approved history with blockers. This provides behavioral detail beyond the 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. The structure is efficient and readable.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the includeHistory nuance, but lacks explanations for entryId, question, and limit. An agent may not know how to use these parameters correctly. However, the tool is read-only and annotations cover safety, so it's not severely incomplete, but still has gaps.

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 only 20% (only projectId has a description). The description explains includeHistory's behavior but not limit, entryId, or question. With low coverage, the description should compensate more; it only partially does.

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', resource 'current approved reusable answers', and scope 'for this dossier'. It also notes live checks for validity, owner, scope, and contradictions. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough to distinguish from many related tools.

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 guidance on the includeHistory parameter, explaining that it exposes non-eligible history with blockers and never as approved truth, plus a warning that reuse requires adaptation and fresh review. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like helvabase_library_source or helvabase_reuse_library_entry, so no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.

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