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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context that the tool returns actionable next tool steps, which is useful but doesn't disclose side effects or authentication needs. 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?

Single 13-word sentence, front-loaded with purpose, condition, and output. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

While the tool's purpose and return type are clear, the lack of parameter explanations and absence of an output schema make it incomplete for an agent to invoke with correct arguments. It also doesn't cover usage variations beyond the buy/sell scenario.

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 only implies the 'question' parameter. It doesn't explain 'context', 'provider', or 'stuckState', leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate these fields.

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 uses specific verb 'Ask' with resource 'Lobex help', scopes it to 'when stuck on buy or sell', and states the outcome 'Returns actionable next tool steps.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools like buy_credits or purchase_service.

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 explicitly says 'when stuck on buy or sell', providing a clear trigger condition for use. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools implies it's for troubleshooting rather than direct actions.

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