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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: answers are grounded strictly in the user's content and come with cited sources, which tells the agent what to expect. No contradiction with 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?

Two tight sentences: the usage trigger and scope first, the grounding/citation behavior second, the exclusion third. Every clause earns its place and the critical routing information is front-loaded.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly conveys grounding, citation, and scope. It covers essentially everything an agent needs to call the tool, with only the sibling-retrieval distinction left unaddressed.

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% for the single `question` parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's phrase "their documents, notes, files or saved knowledge" restates the same scoping the schema provides and adds no new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (answers questions) and resource (the user's own Xenition content — documents, notes, files, saved knowledge), and explicitly scopes it against general knowledge. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling retrieval tools like query_document, search_notes, or search_artifacts, which overlap heavily.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use ("when the user asks a question about their own Xenition content") and explicit when-not-to-use ("Do not use for general knowledge or anything outside their workspace"). It stops short of routing to the specific alternative tools for retrieval, which is the main remaining gap for sibling selection.

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