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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: results are capped at three published answers returned verbatim with their links. It does not say what happens when no answer matches, which is the main remaining gap.

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 usage guidance is front-loaded in the first sentence and the return behavior is summarized in the last, so the agent reads scope before format. The middle line duplicating the question parameter is the only mildly redundant element.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers scope, input phrasing, and the shape of the return (up to three verbatim answers with links). Only the empty-result case is unspecified, which is a minor omission rather than a blocker.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'the question in plain words'. The description's instruction to pass the question 'in their own words' reinforces phrasing but largely restates the schema rather than adding new constraints such as length or keyword behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('questions about how Moda works') and then enumerates the exact topic domains (joining a group, approval times, payments, refunds, bans). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_listing_words or explain_watch_term, which handle different scopes.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: use this for questions about how Moda works, backed by a concrete topic list that tells the agent what falls inside scope. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so routing decisions for borderline questions still require inference.

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