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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool returns a response with 'answer and metadata', indicating read behavior, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention auth, rate limits, or limitations. For a query tool this is minimally adequate.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by Args and Returns. It has no fluff, but it lists only 'query' under Args while 'context' is also required, making the textual summary slightly incomplete.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies the input and output shape. However, it omits the required 'context' parameter in the prose and gives no fallback/error behavior, leaving minor gaps for an agent to infer.

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 50%; the description adds meaning for 'query' ('The question to ask Cortex docs') which the schema omits, while the 'context' parameter is already thoroughly described in the schema. This balances the coverage gap, though the description does not mention the required 'context' parameter in its Args section.

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 names a specific verb ('Query') and target ('Cortex knowledge base'), and states the outcome ('answers'). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like 'searchCatalog' by referring specifically to docs/knowledge base, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies this tool is for asking questions about Cortex docs via the query argument, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., searchCatalog) or provide exclusions. Sibling-tool context is not referenced.

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