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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'No commercial obligation' (likely meaning no payment required) and risk level 'R1; PUBLIC', which exceeds annotation coverage by providing context about access and risk. It does not contradict 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 short, but it spends words on vague phrases like 'bounded first-agent work' and 'shared capability policy dispatcher' that do not earn their place. It is not front-loaded with the most useful information; instead, it opens with abstract jargon before stating 'No commercial obligation' and risk level. It could be rewritten to be more direct.

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?

Given the tool's apparent role as a general concierge for answering questions, the description lacks essential details: what type of questions it can handle, what responses look like (no output schema), any limitations on scope, and how it differs from sibling tools. The annotations cover safety, but the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not mention the 'question' parameter at all. The only clue is the parameter name itself, which implies it takes a question, but there is no description of the expected format, length limits, or how questions are processed. The schema provides minimal information, so the description fails to fill the gap.

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 vague, corporate jargon like 'bounded first-agent work' and 'shared capability policy dispatcher' without explaining what the tool actually does in concrete terms. It does not state a clear verb-resource pair, and the title 'Axiom Concierge Core' only reinforces the ambiguity. An agent cannot infer that it likely answers questions, despite the parameter named 'question'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as find_paid_service or search_directory. It mentions 'No commercial obligation' and 'PUBLIC' but does not clarify that this is for general answering while siblings handle specific capabilities. The sibling names suggest alternatives, but no routing logic is given.

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