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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that it runs on the workspace's AI key, costs tokens, takes a few seconds, and what each response shape means ({answer, sources, model}, empty_brain, {error} with the cause 'no AI key saved'). It also notes that rephrasing won't fix an empty brain — a genuinely useful behavioral warning.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then routing to siblings, then return shapes and failure modes — a sensible priority order with no filler. Despite covering a lot, every sentence carries distinct 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 tool with no annotations, the description fully covers cost, latency, auth/key prerequisites, response shapes, and empty/error states; output schema existence means return values needn't be explained, yet the summary is brief and useful. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both question and model in detail, including the default-model semantics and the key requirement. The description reinforces context (AI key, one topic per call) but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource — 'Answer a plain-English question about the company, with sources' — and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_wiki and get_page as the tools for exact page text or cheap lookups. An agent can select this over the alternatives without opening any schema.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('what does X do', 'why did we choose Y', 'where is Z handled'), says to start here for them, and names the when-not case with the two sibling alternatives. The routing condition ('for exact page text or a cheap lookup') is concrete.

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