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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one-shot behavior, that it returns structured evidence plus a synthesis prompt, and that the HOST writes the final brief. However, it does not explain how evidence is gathered, what sources are used, or any limitations or failure behavior.

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 sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the key behavioral detail about the HOST writing the final brief, earning its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are covered elsewhere. The description explains the tool's role, one-shot nature, and relationship to the final brief. It is slightly less complete because it does not distinguish itself among many siblings, but overall enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The query description adds useful automatic time-phrase behavior, and context is described as optional prior-conversation data. The tool description itself does not need to repeat parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'gather evidence for a selection question.' It further differentiates the tool from siblings by explicitly saying the HOST writes the final brief, clarifying that this tool only produces evidence and a synthesis prompt.

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 a clear use context: use this for a one-shot tech-decision/selection question. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to recognize the intended scenario.

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