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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and auth-free, explains that the answer is the business's own text chosen by the hub, describes the confident field semantics, and covers the empty-answer hint behavior. This is comprehensive and goes far beyond a simple action statement.

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 somewhat long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: read-only note, answer provenance, confident/hint behavior, and usage guidance. It is not overly verbose and avoids fluff, earning a 4.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return behavior: the answer is the business's own text, confident indicates grading, and empty answer comes with a hint. It also covers usage constraints (500 chars) indirectly via schema. This is complete for an agent to know how to interpret results and act on them.

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 100%, so both parameters (business and question) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. It does give context about the answer but not about the parameters themselves.

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 one business a question about itself') and clearly defines the outcome (get back fragments of its knowledge base). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_offers or capabilities by focusing on arbitrary questions about a business, not structured data retrieval.

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 description provides clear context: it is read-only, open to anyone, and gives guidance on how to handle the answer (quote or summarise, don't fill gaps). It also explains the fallback for empty answers. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling tools or state when not to use it, though the read-only note implicitly excludes booking tools.

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