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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It openly discloses that answers are 'grounded, cited,' that the return shape includes { answer, sources, refused }, that off-topic questions are 'refused cleanly,' and that 'no outside knowledge is ever used.' These are important behavioral traits that go beyond the basic function.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function and return format, explaining refusal behavior, and pointing to an alternative. It is front-loaded with the essential action and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 two well-documented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves on fallback, what it returns, and when to use a sibling tool. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly naming the return fields. No critical information 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (question and scope), including an example for scope. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It neither detracts nor adds to the schema's clarity.

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 tool's function: 'Ask a question about Puerto Rico and get a grounded, cited answer synthesized from 787daily's own news corpus.' It uses a specific verb ('ask'), identifies the resource (Puerto Rico news corpus), and differentiates from siblings by explicitly contrasting with search_news for raw matches. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it tells users to use search_news() 'for raw article matches without generation' instead of ask. It also specifies when the tool will not work: questions that are 'off-topic or not covered by the corpus' will be refused. This clearly frames the intended usage and alternatives.

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