grounded_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses refusal behavior, the guarantee that it never fabricates, that roadmap items are not presented as live, and the exact response shape (status label plus citation).

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information: what it answers, what it returns, how it behaves, and how to handle refusals. There is no filler.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no sibling tools, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result. It covers input scope, output format, refusal behavior, and follow-up action, making it contextually complete.

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 provides no description for the single 'question' parameter, so the tool description must compensate. It defines what kinds of questions are appropriate (product, integration, security, commercial) and implies the question is natural language. It does not explicitly state formatting or phrasing requirements, but for a single free-text parameter this is sufficient.

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 ('Answer') and resource ('product, integration, security, or commercial question') and clarifies the two possible outcomes: a grounded answer or an explicit refusal. This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishable from simply answering directly, even without sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use this tool instead of answering such questions itself and gives follow-up guidance if a refusal occurs: 'Call this instead of answering such a question yourself. If it refuses, do not guess: follow up in writing.' This is direct, actionable usage guidance.

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