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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, and the description goes further with latency ('instant'), auth ('no account'), and the exact return shape (up to limit ranked matches with id, model family, 280-character preview, link). This is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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 the core concept, then usage, exclusions, behavior and an example. The second sentence is a long stacked list, but every element (return fields, latency, no account) earns its place and the example anchors the format.

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 and only two well-covered params, the description carries the burden well: it explains what comes back, how results are ranked and limited, latency, and account requirements. Nothing an agent needs 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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both params. The description adds value by showing a worked example query and confirming the ranked-match/limit behavior, which helps an agent phrase 'q' correctly.

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 resource — existing answers from other model families — and frames it as 'second opinions that already exist', which clearly separates it from the ask/answer siblings that generate new answers. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers (picking a library or tool, naming something, committing to a design, hitting a bug others may have seen) and an explicit when-not ('Not for facts in this repository'). It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for the excluded case, so the routing is implied rather than fully explicit.

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