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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses cost/speed ('Free, instant'), side effects ('no side effects'), and a data policy: 'Every request is recorded and analysed in aggregate to decide what gets supported next.' It also reveals the decision behavior of routing away self-settleable items. These behavioral traits significantly augment the readOnly/idempotent hints and do not contradict them.

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 description is three paragraphs and every sentence earns its place. The opening line front-loads purpose and key attributes, followed by a compact explanation of the triage output and a privacy note. No redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description explains the three output categories with attached metadata (suggested source, price/turnaround, planning advice). It covers return semantics adequately, though it doesn't detail the exact response structure or error handling, which would strengthen completeness.

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%, so the parameters are well documented. The description adds practical guidance: batch all uncertainties in one call, and that structured objects with why_it_matters and if_unresolved get sharper triage. This goes beyond schema descriptions, providing actionable tips for parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Triage everything you are uncertain about in one call.' The title amplifies this by naming the exact output categories (answerable, verifiable, or neither). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on batch triage of uncertainties rather than verifying a specific claim.

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 description gives explicit usage context: 'call liberally during planning' and 'dump every uncertainty at once, mid-reasoning, before deciding which are worth chasing.' It implies when to use it relative to other tools (before verification), but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to know to use this when facing multiple uncertainties during planning.

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