answer_web_app_query

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like success/failure outcomes, side effects, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It could benefit from additional context but is not overly verbose.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It explains the action and links to the integration but lacks details on expected behavior or response handling.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (web_app_query_id and result). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Answer' and the resource 'Web App query', distinguishing it from siblings like answer_callback_query and answer_inline_query which target different query types.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as answer_callback_query or answer_inline_query. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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