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

Annotations only declare it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds a real side effect the annotations do not capture — answering restarts the job clock. It also discloses that the secret field is write-only and that an answer never replaces an existing login, which is meaningful safety context. Remaining gaps (permissions, error behavior, what state the question ends in) keep it below 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the action and precondition are front-loaded before the secret-handling caveat. The phrase 'the clock starts again' is slightly telegraphic — it does not say which clock — costing some clarity.

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?

Covers the precondition, the mutation's effect on the job, and the sensitive-field handling for a 5-parameter write tool with no output schema. It does not say what completing the answer does to the question/job state or what comes back, which would round it out.

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 description coverage, the schema already documents all five parameters, including the write-only secret semantics. The description's points about secret and answer largely restate the schema, so it adds reinforcement rather than new parameter meaning.

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 (Answer) and resource (our team's open question on a job) with the qualifying status needs_info, so the operation is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from ask_human (asking) and get_job (reading), but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 a clear precondition — the job must be in status needs_info with an open question — which tells the agent when this tool applies. It also routes the login portion to the secret parameter instead of answer, but offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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