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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by specifying exact presentation requirements, including the provider-neutral headings 'Sources' and 'Confidence', the handling of returned actions, and the link-opening restriction. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not address answer_mode-specific behavior or response edge cases.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description opens with the core purpose, then gives precise output formatting rules, then closes with the critical safety constraint. The length is justified by the number of required behavioral details.

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?

Given the rich annotations and existing output schema, the description covers what matters most: when the tool is appropriate, how results should be rendered, and a critical safety rule. It could be slightly more complete by naming alternatives or clarifying parameter choices, but those gaps are partly covered by the schema.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the meaning of request parameters such as question, caller, answer_mode, and max_sources. It does not do so: it focuses on output formatting and has almost no input-side semantic guidance beyond the tool's general purpose.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Ask a configured partner expert for a citeable answer from approved sources.' This distinguishes ask_expert from sibling search and retrieval tools, which are about finding or fetching articles rather than getting an expert answer.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a citeable answer from approved sources is needed, and it adds a meaningful exclusion: do not open pending or approval-required links without explicit user approval. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like search_articles or get_article.

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