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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a key behavior: every question returns `assistant_v3_unavailable` and no model answers. That is useful transparency about output and refusal behavior, but it does not clarify side effects, permissions, error modes, or the shape of the returned presentation result.

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 and technically one sentence, but it is front-loaded with the vague phrase "The contained assistant" and packed with internal references such as "Decisions 51 and 91." It is concise in length but not structured for quick agent comprehension.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should clearly explain the operation and return behavior. It does state that the result is always `assistant_v3_unavailable`, but it leaves the parameter semantics and practical usage unclear, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it beyond knowing it is a non-model fallback.

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% for the single required `question` parameter. The description only says "every question" and adds no detail about expected question format, constraints, or how the value is used, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 is framed around a "contained assistant" but does not clearly state what `ask` is for in normal terms. It says every question returns the typed presentation result `assistant_v3_unavailable` and names deterministic operations, but the core purpose is obscured by implementation jargon rather than a clear verb+resource.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The mention of deterministic operations that answer from held law implies routing, but it does not tell an agent when to call `ask` instead of `search`, `resolve`, `as_of`, or others.

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