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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are summarised and cited from a curated knowledge base, which is mild output-character context, but it omits the rate-limit/quota behavior that only appears in the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return characteristic second. No filler or repetition; slightly terse but every clause carries weight.

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 4-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description conveys what it does, the domain, and the nature of the return value. Combined with fully covered schema descriptions and rich annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though routing guidance among siblings is still implicit.

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 four parameters (query, top_k, email, subscribe) are already documented in the schema, including the free-tier email logic and subscribe confirmation. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Ask) and a specific resource (the Ergora PR and Communications specialist), with a parenthetical that scopes the domain to media relations, crisis comms and brand reputation. That domain scoping is what distinguishes it from the many ergora_* sibling specialists, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the generalist ergora_ask.

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?

Usage is only implied by the domain label — an agent can infer 'use for PR/comms questions' but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing rule versus ergora_ask or the adjacent specialists. Minimum viable but with a clear gap in alternative selection.

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