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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: every result is provenance-stamped with who/source/trust, and retrieval is hybrid-lite over the semantic world-model. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core usage pattern. Both sentences earn their place: the first establishes what the tool does, the second adds retrieval mode, provenance behavior, and safety context. There is no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does provide some useful return context by noting provenance stamping, but it does not fully describe the result shape, behavior with no matches, or how scope values relate to silos. Still, for a three-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the core information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's 'what do I know about X?' and 'silo-scoped' loosely reinforce query and scope semantics but add little beyond what the schema fields already state.

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 names a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('FLOCORE's MEMORY') and gives an illustrative query pattern, so the operation is clear. It is distinguishable from the ticket/tenant tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named flocore_ask sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies usage context through 'Ask FLOCORE's MEMORY' and 'Read-only, silo-scoped', signaling it is a safe retrieval operation. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of flocore_ask or other siblings, nor does it give any exclusions or alternatives.

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