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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further: 'It changes NOTHING: no project is read or written.' It also explains that an empty answer is information, not failure, and that the tool draws on the same daily allowance as the in-app assistant. This adds real behavioral context 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?

The description is compact yet dense: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance, behavioral guarantees, auth requirements, and quota context. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only Q&A tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, what it does not do, auth scope, quota behavior, and how to interpret empty answers. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents question, locale, and history fully. The description reinforces that the question should be in plain language and max 500 characters, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for any specific parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Ask'), resource ('how to achieve something in OwlCAD'), and a clear outcome: a prose answer grounded only in product documentation with cited help article IDs. This clearly distinguishes ask_help from sibling tools that actually perform CAD operations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool — when you need to know which tool or parameter does a thing 'rather than guessing at a tool call' — and gives an exclusion: prefer schema resources for anything they already answer. It also discloses the shared daily allowance, which affects cost-aware selection.

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