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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state safety. It adds valuable context: free access, no API key needed, returns { answer, latency_ms }, and provides exact curl commands and next steps. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph that efficiently covers scope, usage, cost, and return format. Every sentence contributes value, though it is slightly long; it is well-structured with a clear progression and ends with the return payload.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is fully complete: it explains what the clerk covers (all 37 tools, pricing, onboarding, etc.), how to use it (before other tools), cost (free, no API key), and the exact return format. No output schema exists, but the description supplies the needed output info.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description and examples for the 'question' parameter. The description largely reiterates the tool's scope rather than adding new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('THE CLERK') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as a platform-wide Q&A assistant. It explicitly states it covers all 37 tools and other platform aspects, making its purpose unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to orient yourself before calling other tools' and lists example questions. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the orientation context is clear and actionable.

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