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

Annotations mark this as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds no behavioral context about side effects, permanence, or required authentication. It only provides value format constraints, which are more relevant to parameter semantics.

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 two sentences, directly states the purpose and key formatting rules, with no filler or redundant content.

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 lacks guidance on authentication flow (url vs access_token+session_id) and doesn't explain task_id/session_id, which is significant given the tool's 6 parameters and no output schema. It is minimal and leaves important operational details for the agent to infer.

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 description adds format guidance for yes_no and date fields beyond the schema, clarifying acceptable values for the fields object. However, it doesn't explain the purpose or usage of task_id/session_id parameters, which are undocumented in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: answering structured requested facts keyed by fact_id. It uses a specific verb and resource, but doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool answer_question, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description implies the tool is for responding to structured fact requests, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use it over answer_question or other intake tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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