answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it explains the verdict values, the `threshold` meaning, `data_lag_s` semantics (including that null means NO EVIDENCE WAS OBSERVED, not fresh), and instructs reporting `stale`. It does not explicitly state read-only status or rate limits, but the behavioral contracts it relays are substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only high-value behavioral contracts. Every sentence earns its place, including the verbatim-relay guidance for `unknown` and `data_lag_s`.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description goes beyond it by explaining how to interpret verdicts and caveats. It covers the optional parameter behavior and output semantics, so an agent has enough to call and report results 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 0% for the single optional `question_id`, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of omitting the parameter (list all registered questions), but does not explain the expected ID format or how to obtain valid question IDs, leaving a meaningful gap.

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: answers named questions with a verdict, rule, and evidence age. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying it is 'the one call that returns a CONCLUSION rather than data to interpret.' An agent can tell this apart from data-oriented tools without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this when a conclusion is needed rather than raw data, and omit `question_id` to list all registered questions. It does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when not to use it, but the conditional behavior for the optional parameter gives practical guidance.

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