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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the cross-vertical scope, but this is more about purpose than behavior. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, result aggregation format, or potential for large responses. With annotations covering the essential safety aspects, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the scope.

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 with zero redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Ask across ALL 17 Ergora specialists at once'), followed immediately by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to use it correctly: it defines the scope, clarifies when to use it, and the schema covers parameters. It does not describe the return format, but that is not strictly required given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' safety profile. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the optional 'vertical' restriction, but that is in the schema.

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 every parameter (email, query, top_k, vertical) is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, and since the schema already handles semantics, the baseline of 3 applies. No additional value is provided beyond what the schema gives.

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 ('Ask'), a specific resource ('ALL 17 Ergora specialists'), and a scope ('cross-vertical'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming the alternative pattern (ergora_<vertical>). An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose and how it differs from the vertical-specific siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you don't know the domain') and when not to ('Use a specific ergora_<vertical> tool when you know the domain'). This provides clear decision criteria for an agent selecting between this tool and its siblings.

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