read_answers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that assumptions are printed beside results and that the tool runs locally with no account needed, which signals a safe, non-remote, low-privilege operation. It does not detail failure behavior or exact output shape, but the described behavior is unusually transparent for a tool without annotations.

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 focused sentences: the first names the operation and outputs, the second clarifies output transparency, and the third bounds scope and access requirements. Every sentence contributes distinct useful information with no repetition.

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 single-parameter local computation tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns conceptually, its assumptions behavior, and its access requirements. Without an output schema, more detail on exact result formatting might help, but the listed computed metrics are sufficient for an agent to judge fit.

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 input schema already documents the 'answers' parameter fully, including the '__skip__' convention, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about what arithmetic will be performed but does not materially enrich parameter semantics 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?

Description names a specific operation ('Do the arithmetic on a set of collected answers') and lists concrete outputs: enquiries per person, lead share, channels without a record, and blank fields. It also distinguishes itself from the audit, making its scope clear.

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 intended context is clear: use this after collecting answers, locally and without an account. It also states an exclusion ('stops short of saying what to automate — that is the audit'), which helps an agent avoid reaching for this tool when automation recommendations are needed, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool as an alternative.

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