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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'OracleNet points you to who CAN help,' suggesting a read-only, advisory function, but it doesn't clarify side effects, return format, or whether any action is taken (e.g., sending the referral). This is a minimal level of transparency for an unannotated 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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence ('OracleNet points you to who CAN help') adds a little flavor but is not redundant. It is appropriately concise, though slightly vague.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter documentation. The description fails to explain what the referral looks like, how the result should be used, or any prerequisites like needing an oracle relationship. For a 2-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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%, and the description adds no explicit parameter meaning. While 'need' is reasonably implied by the text, 'current_oracle' is unexplained, and the tool does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The description provides minimal added value over the raw 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 states a specific verb ('Get referral') and resource ('best oracle for your need'), clearly identifying the tool's role. It distinguishes from siblings like quantum_ask or quantum_route by focusing on referral rather than asking or routing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for your need' implies a general use case, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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