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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context outside the annotations — answers are fact-checked and every answer cites its primary source — but says nothing about coverage limits or what happens when a question falls outside the FAQ.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the topic enumeration and the sourcing guarantee. No filler or repetition.

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 one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries the important remaining context (domain, topic coverage, source citation) well. It stops short of stating scope boundaries or expected response shape, but nothing critical for invoking it 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% for the single 'question' parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no syntax, phrasing, or format guidance beyond 'plain language' that the schema itself states. 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 and resource ('answer Chicago-area home-renovation questions from ... FAQ') and pinpoints the covered topics: permits/inspections, contractor hiring, remodel costs, project planning. This domain scope cleanly separates it from the sibling tools, which are all about finding or starting projects with pros.

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 topic list implies when the tool applies (informational renovation questions in the Chicago area), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools it should be preferred over. Usage must be inferred from the subject matter.

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