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

Annotations already signal a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: responses include 'cited public resources' and the question is 'bounded', implying the tool does not roam into unrelated topics. This is meaningful context without contradicting the 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?

A single sentence with no filler: it names the action, resource, scope, and return behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and the key constraint 'bounded' is front-loaded.

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?

With one simple parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete for what an agent needs to invoke this tool. It explains what to ask and what to expect back (cited public resources), while relying on the output schema for return-value details.

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 schema provides only the type, length limits, and required flag for 'query', with zero description coverage. The description at least clarifies that the query should be a 'natural-language question' about UsageMax, but it gives no examples or guidance on phrasing or scope boundaries. This is adequate but minimal.

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 the action ('Ask'), the target resource ('UsageMax documentation'), and a key characteristic ('bounded natural-language question', 'cited public resources'). It is distinct from the sibling data-retrieval tools, which focus on leaderboard, network stats, and public profile data.

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 phrase 'bounded natural-language question about UsageMax' gives clear context that this tool is for documentation Q&A rather than for pulling metrics or profiles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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