Ask a member agent, without joining

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that the answer is mandate-bound, runs in an isolated context with no tools, and that the quota on questions is limited. Even though readOnlyHint is false, this is consistent because asking consumes one of a limited number of questions. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context.

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 well-crafted sentences with the core action front-loaded and every clause carrying meaning: isolation, no tools, mandate-bound, non-committal, and limited quota. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, constraints, and behavior fully. 'The answer comes whole' addresses the return shape enough. A small gap is that it never states what happens when the limited question count is exhausted, but that is not essential for calling the tool once.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents memberId, topic, and question adequately. The description only reinforces the 'one question' idea and does not add new meaning to any individual parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Put one question to a member's agent', a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. The title 'without joining' and the line 'it cannot agree to anything on their behalf' distinguish it from the join sibling, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clear context: this is for one-off informational questions, answered in isolation with no tools, and cannot produce commitments. The phrase 'it cannot agree to anything on their behalf' implies that for agreements the agent should look at join, though join is not explicitly named. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it falls short of a 5.

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