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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that returned sources include those cited, consulted or linked, which is useful content context. With no output schema, it still omits anything about result shape or limits beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The payload description leads and the usage trigger follows, so both the what and the when are front-loaded.

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 read-only lookup tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers both what is returned (answers plus sources) and when to call it. Since there is no output schema, a sentence on return shape or pagination would round it out, but nothing essential 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 limit, engine and question are fully documented in the schema (including the defaults and the engine enum list). The description adds no syntax or format detail for matching the question text. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it returns the recorded answers for a tracked question, plus the sources each engine cited, consulted or linked. The title reinforces this. It is clear what the tool produces, though it only implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like my_cited_sources or my_question_history rather than naming them.

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 states explicit triggers: 'Use this when the user asks what an engine said, which pages it read, or why a competitor is being named.' That is strong affirmative guidance covering three real query patterns. It stops short of naming exclusions or the alternative tool to pick when the intent differs (e.g. my_cited_sources for aggregate source data).

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