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

Adds substantial detail beyond the readOnly/idempotent/closedWorld annotations: the return format (written answer plus a Sources list of verbatim quotes checked against documents), explicit refusal behavior when documents don't cover the question, and disclosure that an LLM generates the answer. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and none are in structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, when to use, what is returned, and failure behavior, with the core purpose front-loaded. No repetition or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the answer-plus-Sources return shape and the not-covered response. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 both question and optional corpus are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further parameter detail and does not mention the corpus override at all, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: answering a question from the office's approved procedure documents. The scope (only approved procedures, plain-language questions) distinguishes it from siblings like search_procedures or verify_claim without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives clear usage conditions: any question about how the office does something, such as a policy, a step, or who to ask. It also warns that rephrasing a question won't change a not-covered answer, which prevents retry loops. It stops short of naming when to prefer search_procedures or verify_claim instead.

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