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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail: it returns summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base, and implies a research-oriented, non-mutating operation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Ask') and the subject ('Ergora PR & communications'), then lists specific topic areas and describes the output. It is concise, informative, and avoids any fluff or repetition.

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-style tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, the domain, and the nature of the output. It does not mention rate limits or the email parameter, but those are already detailed in the schema. The description could optionally hint at use cases, but it is not missing critical information for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (query, top_k, email), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not compensate for any coverage gap because none exists.

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 identifies the tool as a PR & communications specialist with a specific verb ('Ask') and resource (PR & communications). It lists the domain areas (media relations, crisis comms, brand reputation) and states the output (summarised, cited insights from a curated knowledge base). This distinguishes it from other er gor a_* specialists by domain.

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 PR-related questions through its title and content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative specialists, nor does it provide guidance on routing based on topic. The usage context is clear but not explicit enough for a 4 or 5.

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