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

Adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the call does not count as an interaction and uses the same engine as production channels. No side-effect or auth details are given, but the annotation already establishes non-mutating behavior.

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 tight sentences with front-loaded action and resource. Every clause adds information: customer-style question, text answer, engine parity, and no interaction count.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read-only test tool, the description covers purpose, output, engine, and lack of interaction count. However, the history parameter is not explained, and with no output schema the description is the only source for return expectations beyond the brief 'text answer' phrase, making it slightly incomplete.

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 only implies that the required 'message' is the customer question and provides no explanation of the optional 'history' parameter, its role, or how it affects the response. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but leaves history to inference from the property name and role enum.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('asks') and resource ('AI agent'), and clearly frames it as a customer-style test question. It also names the output ('text answer') and distinguishes itself from configuration-focused siblings like oryksa_add_faq and oryksa_setup_business.

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 context: use this tool when you want to ask a customer-style question against the same engine used by WhatsApp and the website chat. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the test-vs-configuration distinction is evident from sibling names.

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