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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description does add useful behavioral detail – that the hash mode returns the full answer plus sources – but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits. Adequate, not rich.

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, zero filler, with the discriminating condition (hash presence) placed first in each clause. Nothing could be cut without losing routing information.

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 read-only, 3-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the mode split and what the hash mode returns. It omits list-mode return shape (what a 'question' record contains) and any volume/pagination expectations, which is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so days and endDate are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining that hash fundamentally switches the operation from a list to a single-item fetch, which is semantic meaning the schema field description alone does not convey.

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 two specific verbs (list questions vs. get one full answer) tied to a clear resource (Podwise ask history), and the hash/no-hash branch makes the tool's dual behavior immediately legible. It does not name the sibling ask_podwise, which is the nearest tool an agent might confuse it with, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent which mode applies under which condition ('Without hash' vs. 'With hash'), which is the key selection decision for this tool. It gives no exclusions or rate/prerequisite guidance, and does not point to ask_podwise as the alternative for asking a new question, so it falls short of a 5.

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