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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns the answer word for word and provides the exact fallback message when no approved answer exists. It does repeat the read-only nature, but the fallback disclosure is valuable.

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 three short sentences and front-loads the primary action. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though the final 'Read-only' sentence is redundant given the 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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the key behavior: what it returns, how it returns it, and what happens when no approved answer exists. It does not explain the source or scope of approved answers, but that is a minor gap for this simple tool.

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 the single 'question' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond saying the lookup is by topic, which slightly mismatches the schema's wording of 'question'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: looks up an approved answer by topic and returns it word for word. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling information tools such as about_nwb, get_policies, or how_to_use.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies a question-answering use case, but it does not state when-not to use it or name any alternative tool.

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