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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, non-destructive, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the result is an interactive card with sources, only certain categories produce cards, and unsupported questions return a message showing nothing. It does not add much about latency or error handling, but the core display behavior is clear.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then supplies a long but relevant list of supported card types. The exhaustive enumeration earns its place for routing decisions, though the single run-on sentence could be structured more readably.

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, the description should explain what comes back; it does so by describing an interactive answer card with sources and the no-card fallback. Combined with complete parameter documentation, this is sufficient for selection and invocation, though it could say more about the exact returned payload.

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 schema already explains question, units, locale, and timezone in detail. The description adds only indirect question-category context and does not clarify parameter usage beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: showing an interactive WebKnox answer card with sources for eligible questions. It also enumerates supported card categories and clearly distinguishes this from general knowledge or advice questions, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by listing supported question types and explicit when-not-to-use guidance by naming general knowledge, advice, opinions, coding, and writing. It also explains the fallback behavior for unsupported questions, so an agent can decide whether to call it.

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