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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'answered by platform rules without any external model' indicates determinism and no external calls, and 'Returns a short answer plus data blocks' discloses the output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concrete examples and a usage note. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information. It is highly efficient and well-structured.

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 flexible question-answering tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers its scope, behavior, and output format. It also provides usage guidance. It does not enumerate limitations, but for a general tool that would be impractical. Annotations cover safety, so nothing critical 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 is 100% and the parameter description includes examples. The description adds semantic context about the scope and type of questions ('selection by requirements, values of a property across a class, companies by capability and country...'), which enriches understanding but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. With high coverage, a 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 clear purpose: 'Plain-language engineering question over the whole platform' and lists specific question types (selection by requirements, values across a class, etc.). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from structured tools by noting it is used when the question does not map cleanly onto one structured tool, which differentiates it from its siblings.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the question does not map cleanly onto one structured tool.' This clearly signals when not to use it, though it does not name specific alternative tools or provide a list of when-not cases. The criterion is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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