answer_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the multi-step workflow and answer constraints: evidence-only answering, citation, fact/uncertainty separation, and honest no-evidence disclosure. It does not cover permissions, side effects, rate limits, or the exact response format, so it is not a 5.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the workflow, and the second states the answer rules. The arrow sequence is dense but purposeful, with no filler.

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?

The description gives the workflow and answer policy, but with no output schema and no annotations it should clarify the evidence packet return format and how limit affects retrieval. Those omissions are meaningful for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. The required question parameter is inferable from the name and description, but the limit parameter with default 3 is completely unexplained, leaving a real gap.

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 from the documentation. It frames the tool as a full orchestration workflow over health check, schema verification, search, validation, and evidence packet, which distinguishes it from lower-level siblings like search_documents and health_check.

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?

Usage is implied: this is for answering documentation questions when a complete evidence-backed workflow is needed, not just raw search or health checking. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose it over search_documents or when not to use it.

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