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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: each new question creates a public conversation page, answers include sources, and continued conversations require session_id and owner_token. It does not contradict 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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the public-page side effect and continuation instructions. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 four-parameter, open-world tool without an output schema, the description covers the primary action, the notable public side effect, and how to continue a conversation. It leaves some return-format detail implicit, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 low at 25%, with only the name parameter documented in the schema. The description compensates partly by explaining that session_id and owner_token come from the previous answer for continuation, but it does not add constraints or semantics for the question parameter beyond the obvious.

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 states a specific verb and resource: ask the sanctuary's writing a question and receive an answer with sources. This clearly distinguishes the tool's core purpose from siblings like read_doc or reflect, though it does not explicitly name any sibling for comparison.

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 useful continuation guidance: pass session_id and owner_token from the previous answer to continue a conversation. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reflect or observe, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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