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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs extra context. It adds that the result is general information rather than legal advice, is scoped to one US state, and draws on the federal baseline and state entry. This is useful behavioral context and 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. The phrase 'from the federal baseline and the state entry' is somewhat cryptic but compact, and the disclaimer earns its place.

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 simple two-string Q&A tool with read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers the domain, geographic scope, and non-legal nature of the answer. It is missing explicit sibling routing and output-shape hints, but those are more relevant to other dimensions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the two parameters. It clarifies that state refers to a US state and question concerns AI voice assistants, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Still, it leaves the accepted state format/values and expected question phrasing unspecified.

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 action ('Answers a question') and a precise domain: an automated/AI voice assistant handling missed calls or approved outbound calls in one US state. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like answer_recording_question and ai_caller_disclosure by topic and scope.

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 implies the tool is for state-specific informational questions about AI-caller practices, and 'not legal advice' sets a boundary. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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