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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals the static, curated knowledge base, the deterministic no-LLM, no-network behavior, the fallback to a general overview on unknown topics, and the exact response shape. These are behavioral facts an agent needs to set expectations and compare with alternative tools.

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 organized in a logical flow: purpose, use cases, input, output, behavior, fallback, exclusions. Every sentence carries information and none is filler; despite its length, it remains scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the complete triage picture: what inputs look like, what the response will contain, how behavioral stability works, what happens on unknown topics, and which sibling to call instead. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, and it does: query is 'a free-text question or topic keyword' capped at 200 characters. This adds semantic meaning that the JSON schema alone cannot 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Answer questions about how Refpro works') and then enumerates concrete example intents, from 'what Refpro is' to 'pricing tiers.' It distinguishes itself from deal_quick_check by explicitly excluding deal analysis and general real estate questions.

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 gives an explicit 'Use this when...' list covering common question types, then states clear exclusions: 'Do not use to analyze a deal or compute numbers; call deal_quick_check for that' and 'Do not use for general real estate investing questions.' This tells an agent both when and when not to select it.

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