ask_ai_rep

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

The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the AI Rep answers on behalf of the profile owner, a read-like behavior. It also discloses that the tool returns the answer and suggested follow-up questions, adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and include the return value. Every sentence contributes meaning with no fluff.

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 tool with 2 well-documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers purpose and output. It could mention that the AI Rep is a simulation, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by implying that questions should focus on professional background, expertise, or services, providing semantic guidance that helps the agent formulate appropriate queries.

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 clearly states the action (ask), the resource (AI Representative), and what it does (answers based on professional identity). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ask_my_ai_rep' and 'ask_contact_ai_rep', which could cause confusion about which rep to query.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'ask_my_ai_rep' or 'ask_contact_ai_rep'). It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints for selection.

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