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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a strong job: it discloses that answers are never returned as lists, that people cards can only be answered via direct questions, and that board ads are excluded for legal reasons. It also hints at internal layer ordering, adding context beyond the schema.

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 overpacked: it opens with an opaque list of layers and includes a rationale about the unmeasured asset value that does not help an agent invoke the tool. The core behavior is buried in the second sentence.

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 covers selection constraints well but, with no output schema and no annotations, it fails to specify the return format or error behavior. An agent still cannot predict exactly what the 'answer' looks like.

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 q and city. The description only reiterates 'question in words' and does not add format, defaults, or examples beyond 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 states a clear behavior: one question yields one answer, identical to what a human receives in the bot and website. It also excludes list returns and board ads, which helps distinguish it from list-oriented siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 provides implicit usage constraints: use for direct human-like questions, not for list requests, not for people-card bypass, not for board ads. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a positive selection criterion.

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