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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world; the description adds real context beyond them by naming the two answer channels and issuing an explicit privacy boundary ('never another user's data, even for org admins') that reinforces openWorldHint=false with an unstated edge case. It also states the empty-result behavior, which annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the privacy caveat. The middle clause ('matches holds evidence... your_profile holds...') is dense and reads like output-field documentation squeezed into a purpose statement, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape needn't be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage, the description leaves source_type and limit entirely unexplained and gives no routing guidance among heavily overlapping siblings.

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 only 25% — just the board parameter is documented, and its filtering side effects (dropping non-Monday evidence) live in the schema, not the description. The description never explains source_type or limit, leaving two of four parameters undocumented in both places.

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 question from your own Dactic context,' and even sketches the answer's two sections (matches, your_profile). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names an overlapping sibling such as query_work_dataset, search, or check_against_policy, so an agent must infer differentiation from the schemas.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many retrieval siblings (search, query_work_dataset, get_entity_context, retrieve_similar_cases). 'When nothing matches, say so' is an answering behavior, not a routing rule, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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