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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest, and it does disclose that responses are account-scoped ("whether this account has it") and that the tool is a grounding source rather than a guess. It does not describe response shape or how the topic follow-up flow behaves, but the mode split and account scoping go meaningfully beyond the annotation.

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 two operating modes are front-loaded in the first sentence and the behavioral directive closes it, with no filler. The opening fragment "Raq.com help and support for agents." is slightly redundant with the title and name, but the rest is dense and useful.

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?

Four optional parameters with no required ones means the agent must decide which combination to send, and the description does not explain how question, module, and topic relate or which takes precedence. With no output schema and a mention that `topic` comes from a prior response, the multi-turn flow is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does gloss two of the params (question, module) in intent terms and hints at a chained flow via module slug lookup, but it says nothing about `topic` or `account_id` that the schema does not already provide.

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 names a specific resource (Raq.com help/support) and two concrete modes: answer a how-to question, or explain a module slug including whether the account has it. That is clearly distinct from data-fetching siblings like raq_fetch or raq_search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with raq_list_available_modules, which overlaps the module-availability claim.

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 gives explicit triggering context ("Ask a how-to question... or pass a module slug") and a directive on how to use the result ("Answer the user from this instead of guessing Raq.com navigation"). It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as raq_list_available_modules for module discovery or raq_search for content lookup.

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