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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the retrieval scope (constrained to the entity's passport), the shape of returned facts (source, attestation status, validity dates), and the explicit-refusal behavior when no supported fact is selected. It omits read-only confirmation, auth/permission needs, and rate limits, but the refusal semantics are a genuinely valuable behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the question constraint before the retrieval and refusal semantics. No filler sentences; only mild redundancy between the passport-scoping and refusal clauses.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description largely compensates by explaining what returned facts contain and that refusals are explicit rather than silent. The main gap is the undefined entity_domain parameter, which an agent needs in order to construct a valid call.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds the 2000-character limit for 'question', which is real value not present in the schema, but says nothing about the expected format or meaning of 'entity_domain', leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: ask a natural-language question about an entity, with a character cap. It implies a Q&A-over-passport role that is distinct from list_entities or search_entities, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with get_passport, which also surfaces entity facts.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call ask versus get_passport or check_trust for a given information need; only the general 'ask about an entity' context is implied.

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