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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new traits: the return shape (boundary statements grouped by document title, or a note that none were found) and the fact that it takes no question and uses no language model, signaling deterministic, non-hallucinated output versus the LLM-backed siblings.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then return behavior and the no-LLM caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return grouping and the empty-result case, plus the deterministic no-model behavior. For a zero-required-parameter, read-only listing tool, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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%, and the single optional corpus parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the default and refusal of made-up ids), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'takes no question' clarifies the absence of a query parameter, a mild addition given the question-taking siblings, but adds no corpus semantics beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list boundary statements from approved documentation) and defines the scope precisely as what is 'explicitly forbids or says it does not cover.' This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools ask_procedures, search_procedures, and verify_claim, which retrieve or check content rather than enumerate documented gaps.

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 explicit triggers: use it before concluding something is allowed, or when a question is not covered, to check whether the topic is a documented gap. It establishes context well but never names an alternative sibling (e.g., verify_claim or ask_procedures) or states when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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