query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and goes beyond a basic statement of function. It discloses the RAG mechanism, that data is fetched live from OneDrive, and importantly warns about non-deterministic behavior when routing_ambiguous is true, where the choice is 'effectively arbitrary.' This level of behavioral disclosure is exceptional.

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 longer than the ideal but every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanism, usage, parameters, ambiguity warning, routing tip, and alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured clearly, though it could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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 complex tool with no annotations and a rich output schema, the description covers the essential decision factors: when to use it, how it works, how to interpret routing ambiguity, and how to confirm live data. It also points to the output schema via metadata.fetched_at, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains n_results (count, default 5) and min_score (threshold for weak matches), and the question parameter is self-evident. However, folder_path is not described at all, leaving its role to inference from its name, which is a small 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 clearly states this is a natural-language query tool with automatic RAG routing, describes the full pipeline (embed, retrieve, rerank, fetch live), and explicitly distinguishes it from filter_sheet for known file/sheet combinations. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and when it is the right choice.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool for exploratory questions when the specific file or sheet is unknown, and names filter_sheet as the alternative for known cases. It also provides actionable guidance for ambiguous routing ('confirm with inspect_file or ask the user') and tips for improving routing accuracy.

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