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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the canonical answer rule, that the tool never names 'the best tool,' that it reports intervals/costs/conflicts/limits, and that stale, superseded, or indeterminate results yield INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE with no rank. This gives an agent accurate expectations for unusual behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral rule, and CLI equivalence. The core action and the key edge case are front-loaded, 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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the answer contains, when it is withheld, and what the result signals carry. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret its unusual response semantics.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains category as an id with an example and a pointer to list_categories. The description reinforces that the tool operates on one category but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Answers') and resource ('one category') and adds the canonical answer rule, so an agent knows what the tool produces. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_categories or get_run by the focus on per-category evidence, though it never names alternatives.

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 phrase 'for one category' implies when to use the tool, and the CLI equivalence gives a reference point, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings such as get_run, explain_limits, or list_categories, and no stated exclusions.

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