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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the retrieval mechanism ('lexical over a committed index, with no external call') and citation URLs in results, though it doesn't discuss result ranking quality or failure/empty-result behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and citation payoff, then the topic list, then the routing rule and retrieval detail. It is a dense single block but each sentence adds information; the long topic enumeration is only mildly redundant with the source list.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what is returned (best-matching passages with URLs for citation, plus suggested lookup tools for entity-specific questions). Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and every parameter (question, source enum, maxPassages range) is already documented with examples and defaults. The description only restates the source set rather than adding format or constraint guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Answer questions') and a precise resource (Fabrica's own published documents), and enumerates the covered topics and sources, which clearly separates it from lookup siblings like get_land_property or explain_property_checks.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use ('how Fabrica works' questions) and the handoff condition: when the question names a specific property, wallet or listing, the result suggests which lookup tool to call. An agent knows both when to pick this and when to move to a sibling.

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