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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool provides a synthesized answer with source citations. Though not explicitly read-only, the semantics of 'ask' and 'grounded in docs' imply a safe query operation. No behavioral traits beyond what is stated are needed for this simple tool.

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 a single sentence of 15 words, perfectly front-loaded and devoid of fluff. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and output characteristics. It does not mention limitations or result format details, but for a basic Q&A tool the information is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely restates the parameter purpose ('ask a question') without adding any new constraints, format, or examples. It adds no value 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'ask', the resource 'docs.nyuchi.com', and the outcome 'synthesized answer with source citations'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_docs (which likely returns raw results) and read_page (for reading a specific page).

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 implies the tool is for asking questions to get synthesized answers, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_docs or read_page. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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