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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is free to add behavioral context — and it does: answers are restricted to workspace content only, and responses cite sources. That grounding constraint and citation guarantee are real information an agent cannot infer from the annotations, though retrieval/pagination behavior is left unstated (the output schema covers the return shape).

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by scope and then the exclusion. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction and none restates the tool name or schema.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema handling return values, the description covers the essentials: what it answers from, how it cites, and what it refuses. The only gap is explicit disambiguation from the other content-querying siblings.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents "question" fully. The description reinforces that the question must concern the user's own content, which slightly narrows intended input, but adds no syntax, length, or format guidance beyond the schema — 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — answering a question from the user's own Xenition documents, notes, files and saved knowledge — with the added qualifier that answers are grounded and cited. It clearly separates itself from general-knowledge answering, but it never names the adjacent siblings (query_document, search_notes, discover_search) that an agent might otherwise pick, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"Use this when the user asks a question about their own Xenition content" gives a clear positive trigger, and "Do not use for general knowledge or anything outside their workspace" gives an explicit negative condition. What is missing is routing among alternatives — nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over query_document or search_notes for the same content.

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