netintel_exa_answer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape (numbered citations with title, url, published_date) and that the answer is grounded in a live web search, which is meaningful behavioral context. It stops short of covering latency, source recency limits, or failure modes, but the core output behavior is clear.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action and output, then the routing hint. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and the primary alternative. The only omission is naming the include_citation_text parameter, which is minor given the schema does at least list it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The query parameter is self-evident, and include_citation_text is implicitly supported by the mention of citations, but the description never names or explains that boolean toggle. Partial compensation for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Ask a question, get a direct answer grounded in a live web search') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the ranked-results sibling netintel_exa_search. The 'One call replaces search + read + summarize' framing makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for a synthesized answer with citations, use /exa/search for ranked results. The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else conditions are both stated.

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