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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: answers come only from the published profile, contain no prices or commitments, and quote requests are routed to a human who replies himself. It doesn't address latency or answer delivery format, but the content-scope and routing disclosure is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then purpose, then boundaries. No filler; every clause carries distinct information (trigger, subject, content limits, escalation path).

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 no explanation. For a single-param, read-only tool, the description supplies the trigger, the topic scope, and the constraints on answers — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 'question' parameter is fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by indicating the topics questions may cover, adding intent-level meaning beyond the schema's syntax and length constraints.

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?

States a specific verb (ask a question) and resource (7IT Solutions) and enumerates the topics it handles, distinguishing it from describe_studio by name. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does versus the sibling it references.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user has a specific question that describe_studio does not answer') and closes with a clear exclusion ('questions that need a quote are passed to Lior Aharonov'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, with the alternative named.

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