Ask HEY

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld, so the description adds real substance: answers are grounded strictly in 'its record' (no outside knowledge), each line is tagged FACT/DERIVED/UNKNOWN with a source, and both English and Malay are accepted. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or how to handle an ambiguous slug, but the grounding/tagging contract is unusually informative.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending on the scope limit. The telegraphic fragment 'Building only; no view on price' is efficient but slightly clipped in a way that could be misread.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shapes, and it still conveys the grounding policy, language options, and domain limits. The only gap is guidance on when this is preferable to research_answer or explain_fact.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by stating the question may be free text in English or Malay and giving a sample phrasing ('did they ship this month?'), which clarifies expected natural-language input. The slug parameter gains only the 'one project' framing, not much more.

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 makes clear this is a free-text Q&A tool scoped to a single project identified by slug, with an example question. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling research_answer, though the opening phrase 'Asking something else' hints at follow-up usage.

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?

'Asking something else about one project?' implies a follow-up/continuation context, and 'Building only; no view on price' is a genuine scope exclusion. However, no explicit routing versus research_answer, explain_fact, or get_evidence is given, so the agent must infer when this tool beats its siblings.

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