answer_clarification

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the deliberate fact-release mechanism, the exact no-match response format ('matched: false'), and the hard rule against fabricating case facts. This prepares the agent for edge cases and sets expectations beyond the tool name.

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 primary action in the first sentence and behavioral guardrails in the following sentences. Every clause earns its place; the 'good candidates ask, weak ones assume' line justifies the design without bloating the definition.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the trigger, the behavior, the no-match response, and the boundaries. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from using the tool 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 already fully describes the sole parameter ('The candidate's clarifying question, verbatim'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the question being a trigger, but no additional format or constraint details. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps because there are none.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Release') and a well-defined resource ('one withheld fact') conditioned on the candidate asking. It also states this is the *only* way case data reaches them, which differentiates it from sibling tools that might present information. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 trigger is explicit: 'if the candidate asked for it.' It also provides clear when-not-to guidance: if nothing matches, say you don't have the information and let them proceed, and never invent facts. Although it does not name alternative tools, the claim that this is the only channel effectively rules out alternatives.

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