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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description adds real behavioral context: answers are sourced, and the tool refuses rather than guesses when records are insufficient. It also explains the stateful continuation mechanism, which annotations cannot convey. Return format details are lightly implied but not fully spelled out.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the continuation mechanic. Dense but every clause (records-only, sourced, refusal, pending) carries distinct 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 2-parameter tool with a nested `pending` object and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (an answer plus a possible `pending`), its sourcing discipline, and its failure mode. Only the exact response shape is left implicit.

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 both parameters are already documented; the description adds meaning by explaining that `pending` is the value carried over from a prior answer to continue multi-step questions. It exceeds the baseline without documenting the nested object's internal shape.

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 concrete verb + resource ('Ask Chat DLD a question... and get its answer') and pins the scope to Dubai Land Department records, which separates it from the narrower sibling data tools. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative, so it is clear rather than fully differentiated.

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 a clear triggering context (plain-English questions about DLD records) and an explicit multi-step case: pass the previous `pending` value to continue a question such as a valuation. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it is context without routing.

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