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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the result is a JSON schema per question, and a question shared by two sources is listed under each and answered from that source's own records — a deduplication/ownership rule an agent could not infer from the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the shared-question rule and filter options. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler or restated title.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing the shape of each returned entry and its per-source ownership semantics. Combined with full schema coverage on both optional filters, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it never says what the invocation returns if no source/topic matches.

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 the schema already explains both filters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example topic values (money, tax, jobs, customers, sales, schedule, staff) that guide value selection, but offers nothing extra on the source parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 the exact resource (the questions ask_question answers), what each entry contains (name, what it answers, its arguments as a JSON schema), and scopes it to the sources this company holds. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling ask_question as the answering counterpart, so an agent can tell discovery apart from invocation without opening a 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?

It tells the agent how to narrow results (by source, or by a word/topic) but never states when to prefer this over ask_question or that it should be called first to find what is answerable. Usage is strongly implied by the 'questions ask_question answers' framing but not spelled out as a when-to-use rule or exclusion.

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