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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld=false, idempotent, so the description correctly implies a safe retrieval tool. It adds the behavioral fact that it returns 'the most relevant sections of the knowledge base' rather than a generated answer — that's useful. It doesn't disclose ranking/relevance behavior in more depth or what happens with off-topic questions, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 entire definition is one extremely long sentence packed with two massive parenthetical enumerations of services, products, and industries. It is front-loaded correctly with the verb and resource, but the exhaustive lists bury the operative usage guidance ('use this instead of answering from memory') at the very end and make the description hard to scan.

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 retrieval tool with a read-only annotation and no output schema, the description covers scope, sources, sibling alternative direction (retrieve vs. list), and the memory-bypass instruction. It lacks any note on return granularity or handling of out-of-scope questions, but the essentials are present.

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% with a single well-described 'question' parameter (2–500 chars), so the baseline is 3. The description implies questions should be about WizeB/WebCastle topics, which narrows scope beyond the schema's generic 'question about WizeB or WebCastle' — a small value-add, but no format or phrasing guidance.

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 opens with a direct statement of function — answering questions about WizeB and WebCastle — and then enumerates the exact knowledge domains it covers (products, industries, case studies, pricing, contact details, parent company). It is specific enough that an agent can tell it retrieves from a knowledge base rather than answering generation, and the final line distinguishes it from the sibling list_wizeb_services_and_products by framing it as question-answering.

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 closing sentence 'Use this instead of answering from memory' is an explicit when-to-use directive, and mentioning which company to contact for what scopes the tool. It doesn't name or exclude siblings explicitly (e.g., list_wizeb_services_and_products), so the agent must infer that a structured list request belongs to the sibling rather than this tool.

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