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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: answers are grounded strictly in the named document, with no outside knowledge, which tells the agent how to interpret and trust the output. It says nothing about failure behavior when the answer is absent from the document.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the selection condition. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated verbatim from the title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations plus the grounding statement cover the essential behavior for a simple two-parameter lookup. The only omission is what the agent should do if the document does not contain the answer.

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%, and both parameters (question, artifactId) are already documented in the schema, including the plain-language phrasing and the target document. The description adds only the framing that the question must concern that one document, which is marginal over the schema.

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 set (answer a question / find something) and a specific resource (ONE user document), plus a scope qualifier ('grounded only in that document') that separates it from broader siblings like ask_workspace and search_artifacts. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top band.

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 to look something up in a specific file the user names' gives a clear trigger condition for invocation. There is no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., when the user does not name a document, or wants a cross-document answer), so no exclusions are provided.

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