ask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains the privacy model (fresh zero-knowledge key, gateway cannot identify the asker) and the cost behavior (spends the model's price in questions). It omits error behavior, rate limits, and return details, but adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two decision-relevant traits: privacy and cost. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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?

Covers the key considerations for this paid private query tool: privacy guarantees, question spending, and where to find model IDs. Since there is no output schema, it could explicitly state that the model's answer is returned or describe insufficient-balance behavior, but overall it is complete enough 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that model IDs come from the models tool, but it does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides for question, model, or system.

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 and resource: 'Ask one of PARANOID's AI models a question,' with the additional qualifier 'in private.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like models, balance, and buy, which are listing/pricing/purchasing operations.

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 primary use case is clear: ask a model a question privately. It also points to the models tool for model IDs/pricing, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly name the buy or balance alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.