Get the eight scoping questions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the returned questions are meant to be asked conversationally and that they feed into applicability_brief. It also discloses the substance of the return value (questions, allowed values, rationale).

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 sentences carry the full purpose, content, and usage workflow with no wasted words. The return content is front-loaded, and the actionable instruction is placed second. This is an ideal length for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and a clear usage instruction, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation. It even tells the agent what to do with the result (ask the user) and what to call next. Nothing important is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The schema is empty and fully documented by its nonexistence. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and usage rather than inventing parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('the eight questions used by applicability_brief'), and it distinguishes the tool by naming the sibling it serves. It also explains what content is included: allowed values and the rationale for each question. This is unambiguous and contextually rich.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: ask the user the questions conversationally, then call applicability_brief. This establishes the tool's role in a workflow and its relationship to the obvious sibling tool. No alternative tool could be confused for this one after reading the guidance.

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