ask

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing the answer format — inline citations as [n] mapped to source documents — which tells the agent to expect grounded, attributed output. It omits other relevant traits: whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), what happens when no passage supports an answer, and any cost/latency characteristics of retrieval plus generation.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the output-format detail follows. Nothing is repeated from the name or the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and the citation note is a useful supplement rather than a necessity. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and one obvious sibling, leaving `k` undefined and giving no routing guidance to search_docs leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. "question" is self-evident, but the `k` parameter (default 5) is never explained in the schema or the description — an agent cannot tell whether it means number of passages retrieved, citations emitted, or candidate answers considered, which directly affects the answer.

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?

"Answer a question from the indexed documents" gives a specific verb (answer) and resource (indexed documents), which is clearly distinct from the sibling search_docs, though the description never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast. An agent can infer this is the question-answering/RAG tool rather than a raw retrieval tool.

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 is only implied: the phrasing suggests it is for natural-language questions over the index, while search_docs presumably returns raw documents. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the index need to be built?), and no routing statement for the one sibling that exists.

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