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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the return shape (answer, confidence, sources, fields, next) and substantive behavioral details: questions are trimmed with keys, emails, and IPs removed, retained in a private log for about three months, and health questions are redacted and not topic-counted. This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and data handling that the annotations alone would not convey.

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 purpose and return shape, followed by usage guidance and privacy details. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the privacy clause is long but justified because it discloses data retention and redaction. Slightly dense for a single paragraph, but no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return fields and the follow-up 'next' behavior, and it covers data handling thoroughly. What's missing is the relationship to sibling tools and any prerequisites, but for a single-parameter Q&A tool this is close to 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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides only type, minLength, and maxLength. The description adds that the input is a question about iinventedlight and hints that health-related questions get special treatment, but it doesn't state the 300-character limit or the expected phrasing. This is adequate but leaves a gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Answer a question about iinventedlight from the public notes and library in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it as a one-shot Q&A tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against close siblings like get_fact or search_notes, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is some guidance: 'Follow next when confidence is low' tells the agent what to do after calling, which is useful. What is missing is when to call this tool instead of get_fact, search_notes, or cite, and any exclusions such as questions outside the iinventedlight scope.

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