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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: no authentication is required, and pricing is out of scope for the return payload.

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 short sentences, the core behavior front-loaded, and each clause (no sign-in, no price) adds information rather than restating the name. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers scope and auth adequately. The remaining gap is the missing boundary against ask_support, which matters in a sibling set this large.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must carry the load. Saying it answers 'a question' does imply the parameter is natural-language input, which is meaningful, but no format, length, or phrasing guidance is given.

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: returns public product facts and in-app menu names for a question. This clearly separates it from data-fetching siblings like get_account or search_calls, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with the closest sibling, ask_support.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. 'No sign-in' and 'Does not return a price' are scope exclusions, not routing rules, so an agent cannot tell from the description whether a given question belongs here or with ask_support.

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