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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds what annotations cannot: the answer must be grounded in returned entries and the no-match case should be reported as unpublished rather than invented. It also discloses the return content (entries with source URL). It doesn't describe result limits, ranking, or what happens when multiple kinds match.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then return shape, then the grounding constraint. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 carries the return explanation and does so adequately ('matching entries with their source URL'), plus the critical anti-hallucination directive. It is complete enough to call correctly; only result cardinality/ordering behavior is left unstated.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the question or kind parameters beyond the schema's own wording. The 'matching entries' phrasing implies filtering but gives no additional syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Answer a question about this brand") and names the corpus it draws on (FAQs, policies, case studies, facts). It also states the return shape (matching entries plus source URL), which helps separate it from plain listing siblings like get_case_studies or get_brand_profile. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

"Base your answer only on them; if nothing matches, say the brand has not published that information" gives clear grounding and no-answer handling, which is real usage guidance for an answer tool. What's missing is explicit routing guidance for when to pick this over retrieval siblings such as get_case_studies or get_offer.

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