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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool's role as a sufficiency gate, lists the return fields (answerable, missing fields, contradictory fields, recommended next tool, confidence), and explains the consequence of answerable=false. This adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core concept ('Sufficiency gate'), then expands with usage guidance and return values. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. It even summarizes the output structure, which is helpful despite the existence of an output schema. For a decision-gate tool with simple parameters, this is complete and well-rounded.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'Pass your query and optionally the fact rows you have gathered.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema by telling the caller exactly what to provide for each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'can this question be answered with current evidence?' It uses a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('answerability') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like assess_coverage and assess_delegation_readiness by focusing on sufficiency for answering a query.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this BEFORE forcing a best-guess answer.' It also gives a clear decision rule: if answerable=false, say 'insufficient evidence' rather than guessing wrong. This is direct and actionable.

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