company_kb_answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and uses it well: it discloses the key behavioral boundary that the tool 'does not invent final policy' and returns cited evidence for Copilot synthesis. This prevents an agent from treating the output as authoritative policy. It doesn't cover edge cases like missing sources or citation failures, but the core behavioral contract 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the tool's operation, the second clarifies its output boundary. The most important behavioral caveat is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

At 4 parameters with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is too lean to be complete. It handles the core purpose well but omits practical invocation details such as what filters accept, how limit affects results, whether requireCitations can be disabled, and how this relates to company_kb_search. The output schema presence helps but does not fill these gaps.

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 must compensate, but it only weakly touches parameters: 'natural-language question' relates to the required question, and 'cited evidence' hints at requireCitations. It provides no explanation of limit, filters, or requireCitations semantics, so an agent parsing optional parameters would remain under-informed.

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 tool retrieves a focused evidence pack for a natural-language documentation question, with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling company_kb_search, but the 'evidence pack for Copilot to synthesize' framing gives it a distinct identity.

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 implies when to use it: for natural-language questions needing cited evidence and synthesis guidance rather than final policy. However, it doesn't provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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