Room Q&A as a FAQ draft

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that hidden questions are excluded, the exact ordering, a hard capacity limit (2,000 questions / ~900,000 characters), the truncation notice, and a prompt-injection warning about audience text. That is substantive behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

A single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with purpose and ordering before routing and limits, and every clause carries distinct information. Only mild cost from being one long run-on rather than segmented sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description itself describes the return document's structure, ordering, truncation behavior, and content provenance, plus safety guidance. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result correctly.

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% with a single well-documented 'code' parameter (pattern plus example), so the schema already does the work and no param-level detail is added in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only input.

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 (read a room's Q&A) plus the output form (one Markdown document) and the exact ordering logic (answered, then approved by votes, then pending-marked). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_room_questions, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('draft a FAQ or summarize a session') and a named alternative with the selecting condition ('use get_room_questions instead when you need question ids... JSON fields or newest-first order'), tying ids to moderate_question and answer_question. Nothing is left to inference.

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