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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: an empty result means no approved answer exists, and the agent is explicitly told not to invent one. It also hints at pagination via 'Page with offset'.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the most important caveat (empty result and no invention) then pagination. The phrasing 'Page with offset' is slightly clipped but still compact and waste-free.

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 values need not be explained, but the description fails to document the required 'deskId' parameter and the 'includeRetired' behavior. For a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, this leaves an agent without enough information to call it correctly in all cases.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden. It gives semantics for 'query' (topic, question, answer text) and 'offset' (paging), but completely omits the required 'deskId' parameter and the 'includeRetired' flag, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('approved answers') and even specifies the fields searchable (topic, question, answer text). It clearly distinguishes this read-only search from the write sibling save_approved_answer and from the commitments-related list 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement, and the note about empty results gives some guidance on interpreting output. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., save_approved_answer or list_approved_commitments) and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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