Ask Ferret

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them — a prerequisite (AI switched on), a cost model (counts as one AI action), a latency warning (several seconds), and the fact that the answer cites the items it used. Those are exactly the facts an agent needs to decide whether the call is worth making and how to present results.

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?

One tight paragraph: purpose first, examples second, sibling exclusion third, operational caveats last. No sentence is redundant, and the most decision-relevant content (what it does, when not to use it) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the return shape well enough — a natural-language answer with citations of the items used. With only one parameter and a short prerequisite/cost note, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by showing the question is posed in natural language as the person asked it (not keyword fragments), illustrated with two realistic phrasings, which guides the agent's input formatting beyond the schema.

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 and resource — answering a question in words from the household's own items and documents — and immediately concretizes it with two example questions (warranty end date, furnace filter). It explicitly contrasts itself with search_inventory, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative (search_inventory) and the exact condition that selects it: the person wants to find a thing rather than learn a fact. It also states a prerequisite (the server's AI must be switched on), so the agent knows when the call will not work at all.

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