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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the response latency (10–40 seconds), that answers are cited, and gives a phrasing instruction. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't mention session handling or error cases, which are handled by the schema.

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 only two sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second adds critical usage and timing information. It is front-loaded, with no repetition of schema or annotation fields, and every sentence adds value. Excellent concision.

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 question-answering tool, the description covers purpose, latency, response style, and phrasing constraints. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the schema and annotations cover parameter details and safety. The output schema is absent, but the cited-answer behavior is stated. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance on the 'question' parameter by instructing the agent to ask in the person's own terms and avoid identifiers, which clarifies expected content in a way the schema's field description does not fully capture. This modest addition justifies a 4.

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 a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('HenryKnows'), and defines the exact domain (F-1/J-1 immigration, SEVIS, OPT, CPT). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_sources' and 'connect', which have different functions. Even without naming them, the purpose is unmistakable.

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 includes guidance on how to phrase questions ('Ask in the person's own terms; do not add identifiers') and notes the response time, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings 'connect' or 'search_sources'. There is no direct comparison or exclusion, so the selection criteria are left to inference.

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