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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the RAG mechanism, the citation format, the AI layer requirement, and a security-relevant note that field values are treated as data, never instructions. This helps the agent invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concrete example, the return value, a scoping instruction, a prerequisite, and a safety note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 rich annotations, fully described schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how it grounds answers, how to scope, what it requires, and a safety caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to call this tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with descriptions and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief usage tip for `type` and a general safety note, but it does not materially enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 this is a natural-language Q&A tool grounded in the registry via RAG, with a concrete example question. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'semantic_search' or other search tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 clear context for use: natural-language Q&A with grounded citations, plus a prerequisite ('Requires the AI layer') and a scoping instruction ('Scope the retrieved context with `type`'). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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