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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'It changes NOTHING: no project is read or written.' Beyond that it adds non-annotation context: Pro plan requirement, the `ask` scope, a shared daily allowance, and that an empty answer signals a documentation gap rather than an error.

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-loaded with what the tool does before caveats, and each sentence carries useful information. Slightly long and the 'It changes NOTHING: no project is read or written' clause partially restates the readOnly annotation, but it's a worthwhile emphasis rather than padding.

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 must explain returns — it does: prose answer, source article ids, and that an empty answer is informative. Access requirements (Pro plan, `ask` scope, shared quota) are also covered, so nothing needed to call this correctly 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 locale, history, and question are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a slight framing point ('in plain language') and does not extend parameter meaning beyond what is structured. 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?

States a specific verb (ask) and resource (OwlCAD documentation) and precisely characterizes the output: a prose answer grounded in the docs plus the ids of the articles used. This clearly separates it from action siblings like evaluate, measure, or check_interference, which perform work rather than answer questions.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when you need to know which tool or parameter does a thing') and gives two concrete example questions. It also names the alternative — 'prefer the schema resources for anything they already answer' — which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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