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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results are summarised, cited insights drawn from a curated knowledge base of practitioners, books, and research, which helps set expectations about answer format and sourcing.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that leads with the action and resource, names the domain topics, and then states the output format. Every phrase contributes value, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 Q&A tool with rich annotations and complete schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: what to ask, what domain it covers, and what kind of response to expect. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of summarised, cited insights is important and sufficient for an agent to understand the return style.

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 all three parameters (query, email, top_k) already have meaningful schema descriptions. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level detail beyond the general 'ask a question' framing, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb ('Ask') with a specific resource (Ergora HR & people ops) and lists the covered topics: hiring, culture, performance, employment. It also states the output type: summarised, cited insights. It does not explicitly contrast itself with generic siblings like ergora_ask or list_specialists, but the HR domain focus is enough to separate it from the other domain specialists.

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: for HR and people-ops questions about hiring, culture, performance, or employment. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, such as ergora_ask for general questions or other specialists for different domains.

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