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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: argument-count-dependent modes (list-all vs single full answer) and the shape of each answer (steps, links, and a public URL). It does not address rate limits, error responses, or auth, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose before the invocation mechanics, and every clause carries information. It runs long as a single dense multi-clause sentence, which slightly reduces scannability, but there is no filler.

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, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by explaining that each answer contains steps, links, and a shareable URL. Combined with the mode selection and empty-argument behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and use the tool correctly.

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, but the description goes further by tying parameters to intent: the error code supplied by an Uplika response, or a short question in any language, and it explicitly tells the agent to omit workspaceId when already decided rather than re-ask the person. That usage-level meaning exceeds the schema text.

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 (look up) and resource (Uplika troubleshooting answers) and opens with the exact problem it solves: why something did not work and what can be done about it. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like diagnose_naver_blog or get_insights, and an agent can route to it 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?

Explicitly names the triggering situations (a failed call, an automation that did not react, a DM that did not arrive, the person asking why something happened) and maps each argument mode to a scenario: code for an error code, query for a natural-language question, id for one full answer, no args to list everything. The when-to-use is concrete and there is little left to inference.

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