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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-world grounding are covered structurally. The description adds the useful provenance constraint (public docs only, no internals), but says nothing about behavior for out-of-scope questions (refusal vs. best-effort) or whether answers carry citations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the grounding constraint, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing scope information.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the agent gets no hint about the response shape (answer text, citations, refusal behavior). A brief note on what comes back would close the gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the weight; it only implies the single 'question' argument without guidance on phrasing, specificity, or the 500-character limit the schema enforces. It adds marginal meaning beyond the schema's type/required declaration.

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 (ask a question) and a specific resource/domain (SNET), plus an explicit scope limit: answered only from SNET's public documentation, no internals. No sibling tool does question-answering, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 scope clause ('answered only from SNET's public documentation (no internals)') tells the agent when this tool applies and one clear exclusion. It stops short of naming an alternative for questions outside that scope, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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