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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that answers come from reviewed facts with attribution (who states it, source link, date last confirmed) and that the tool explicitly reports when no reviewed fact covers the question rather than guessing. It does not restate that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation or discuss response shape beyond the fact records, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the source-quality guarantee, then the fallback and the live-data caveat. No filler or repeated phrasing.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (attributed, dated facts), what happens on failure (says so when nothing reviewed covers it), and the data-freshness boundary. Nothing needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter with an example, so the schema already does the work. The description reinforces that the question must name the activity, walk, route or town, which is useful but largely duplicates the schema's own guidance — baseline 3 applies.

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 (answer) and a precisely scoped resource (questions about named Queenstown/Fiordland/Wanaka/Arrowtown activities, walks, routes or towns) answered only from reviewed facts. The closing 'Not live information' distinguishes it from live_conditions and today_fact without ambiguity.

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?

Implies the use case clearly — ask a question about a named activity/route/town — and excludes live data, which routes the agent to live_conditions instead. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly or stating other exclusions, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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