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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool automatically routes to correct APIs, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the response contains. This leaves important safety and outcome information undisclosed.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters, and the schema is complete. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return format and safety information. It is sufficient for selection and basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent expecting clear behavioral contracts.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters themselves, relying on the schema's clear definitions of 'question' and 'symbol.' It does not introduce any ambiguity but also does not add value beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific verb ('query') and resource ('evidence') and adds a distinctive behavioral feature ('Routes plain-English questions to correct APIs automatically'). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, but the natural language angle clearly separates it from more structured tools like audit_query or compliance_preflight.

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 usage: when you have a plain-English question about evidence. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use audit_query for structured queries' or 'use ai_explain for explanations.' This is adequate but leaves room for clearer direction.

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