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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: the exact return shape (answer, confidence, sources, fields, next), the low-confidence follow-up loop, and a data-retention disclosure ('only a short normalized topic of unanswered questions is kept, never the question itself'). That privacy detail is meaningful behavioral information 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then packs return shape, follow-up rule, and retention policy into two more tight sentences with no filler. Slightly dense/run-on phrasing but every sentence earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields and explains the confidence/next mechanic. Combined with the retention note, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool; only the parameter constraints are thin.

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?

Only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It does add domain scope (the question must concern corrow/iinventedlight/Starweave), but omits the 300-character limit and any phrasing guidance, leaving the parameter only partially characterized.

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 (answer) and resource (questions about corrow/iinventedlight/Starweave sourced from public notes and library). 'In one call' hints that it aggregates what search_notes/read_note would require multiple calls to do, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Follow next when confidence is low' guides post-call behavior, not tool selection. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_notes/read_note guidance; the agent must infer that a natural-language question maps here and a keyword lookup maps to search_notes.

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