ask_ai_about_documents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool provides AI-generated answers with sources, consistent with a read-only information retrieval operation. It does not discuss potential limitations like latency or hallucination, but annotations cover the behavioral traits adequately.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, bullet-pointed use cases, an Args section, and a Returns note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (simple query interface with optional filters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, use cases, parameters, and return format. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (property descriptions missing in schema), the tool description includes a dedicated 'Args' section that explains each parameter: question as the natural language query, collection_id and document_id as optional filters. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type and required fields.

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 the tool queries document content using natural language questions, with specific examples (e.g., 'What is our vacation policy?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on CRUD, archiving, or keyword search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 lists situations to use the tool (e.g., find specific information across documents, get direct answers). However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives, though sibling tools like search_documents or read_document serve different purposes.

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