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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's disclosure of the response contract — the assistant either asks another question or proposes something to confirm — adds real value since no output schema exists. It does not, however, explain the write implication of readOnlyHint=false or what happens if no question is pending.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the return behavior. No wasted clauses or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential round-trip: answer goes in, next assistant turn comes out. It is nearly complete but omits error/edge behavior such as a missing prior question or authentication expectations, keeping it short of a 5.

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 100%, so all three parameters (team, answer, timeZone) are already documented in the schema, including the conditional 'only when the user belongs to more than one team' rule for team. The description only echoes 'in their own words' for answer and adds nothing new, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it relays the user's answer to Capital Company's last assistant question and returns the assistant's next turn. This is clearly distinct in flavor from the sibling capital_company_ask (which poses a question) and capital_company_confirm, though it never names those siblings explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'the question Capital Company's assistant asked last,' which tells the agent this follows an ask. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus capital_company_confirm or capital_company_conversation, and no preconditions or exclusion guidance.

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