ask

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description goes further by disclosing the data flow: question text, schema, project ID, and dates may be sent to a configured AI provider, and the question is persisted to project history. It also adds a useful privacy advisory (avoid sensitive question text). This is solid added context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then mechanism, then the privacy constraint and parameter note. Sentences are dense but each adds distinct information with no filler; slightly wordier than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, execution paths, fallback behavior, privacy, and the one non-obvious parameter, which is sufficient for a two-parameter question tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains days (default window 1..366, overridable by recognized date phrases), but says nothing about the question parameter beyond the general purpose, leaving half the parameters implicit.

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 names a specific verb and resource (answer a natural-language analytics question, store its text in project history), which is clearly distinct from metric-reporting siblings like query_metrics and run_query. It does not explicitly name or route against those siblings, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It implies when the tool applies (natural-language questions, with a deterministic planner for common ones and an explicit fallback for unsupported ones), but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as run_query or query_metrics. Usage context is implied rather than guided.

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