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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that it returns 'summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base', which is useful context about output nature. No contradiction with annotations; the addition is modest but meaningful.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Ask') and domain, then describes the output. It avoids fluff and is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 Q&A tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the domain, the output format (summarised, cited insights), and the knowledge base origin. It does not explain return value details, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents query, email, and top_k semantics. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No compensation needed.

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 clearly states the tool is for asking about leadership and management (teams, execution, feedback) and that it returns summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base. The verb 'Ask' and the domain differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., ergora_marketing, ergora_finance) are clear, though it could tighten the differentiation edge.

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 usage for leadership/management topics via the domain phrase, but it does not explicitly say 'use this for leadership questions instead of other specialists' or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling names make the domain obvious, but explicit when-to-use guidance is absent, leaving some inference to the agent.

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