ask

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is lighter, but it still adds real behavioral value: answers are grounded strictly in added sources, and the `grounded` flag is false when sources lack an answer. It also specifies the [n] marker and citation structure, though it does not mention latency or failure modes for empty/unavailable sources.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then packs return-shape details into a compact second clause. Dense but no filler; the nested citation shape listing is arguably more than prose needs but it is efficient.

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, yet the description usefully explains the grounded flag and citation fields that an agent must interpret. The main omission is `top_k`, which is left entirely undefined, so the tool is nearly but not fully callable without guesswork.

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% and the description never mentions `top_k`, leaving its retrieval-depth semantics undocumented anywhere. Only `question` is self-evident from the prose; the most consequential tuning parameter is unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Answer a question") and scopes it precisely ("from the added sources only"). The purpose is unmistakable against siblings add_source and list_sources, which ingest and enumerate sources rather than answer questions over them.

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?

"From the added sources only" implies the prerequisite that sources must already be added, which is useful context. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_sources or how to behave if no sources exist — usage must be inferred.

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