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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the tool returns 'summarised, cited insights' and draws from a 'curated knowledge base of leading practitioners, books and research.' This clarifies the answer style and source boundary without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first defines the tool's domain, the second defines its output and knowledge source. Every phrase contributes value, and the description is front-loaded with the primary action ('Ask').

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 read-only knowledge-retrieval tool with one required parameter and three fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns and from what knowledge source, while annotations cover safety and idempotency. Nothing needed to invoke it successfully is missing.

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%; the input schema already documents query, email, and top_k, including defaults, bounds, and the email quota-unlock behavior. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the sales domain, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 sales-domain specialist ('Ask the Ergora Sales') and enumerates concrete sales subdomains ('prospecting, outreach, pipeline, closing, sales ops'). It also states the output format ('summarised, cited insights'), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like ergora_marketing or ergora_ads without opening their definitions.

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 sales-scoped topic list provides a clear implicit usage condition: use this tool for sales-related questions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the domain context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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