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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful context: the answer is drawn from 'the state's consent entry' and is 'general information, not legal advice,' which tells the agent about sourcing and the limits of the answer. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the disclaimer earns its place in the second sentence. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-parameter Q&A tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, and output caveat. However, it leaves parameter formats and sibling-tool routing unaddressed, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% and the description does not specify the expected format for 'state' (e.g., full name vs. abbreviation) or the scope of 'question' beyond the general topic. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly, some parameter guidance is needed and is currently missing.

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 ('Answers'), a specific resource ('question about recording phone calls in one US state'), and a specific data source ('from the state's consent entry'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like answer_ai_caller_question and call_recording_consent, and the 'General information, not legal advice' qualifier adds useful scoping.

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 when to use the tool (a sales manager has a question about recording calls in a state) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to sibling tools. The 'not legal advice' line is a caveat about output nature, not a usage exclusion, so the guidance is only implicit.

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