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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description warns this is a LANGUAGE MODEL call that CAN BE WRONG and instructs checking `confidence` and `citations`. It also discloses auth requirements and quota limitations, adding real behavioral context annotations alone do not provide.

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 sentences with no filler: the core action, the critical caveat, and the usage conditions are all present. The most important behavioral warning is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, why to trust-but-verify, and when not to use it. Nothing essential 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 coverage for the single parameter `q` is 100%, with the schema already stating it is a natural-language question. The description's 'free-form question' phrasing adds minimal extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Ask a free-form question'), a clear resource ('the outage.me analyst'), and the subject scope ('about the live monitor'). It also distinguishes itself from deterministic siblings by positioning itself as an open-ended, cited-answer tool.

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 description explicitly tells agents when to prefer alternatives: 'use the deterministic tools above when they can answer the question.' It also discloses prerequisites (sign-in or API key) and quota limits, which is actionable routing guidance.

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