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

Annotations only declare the mutation/idempotency profile; the description adds non-obvious behavior that the clock restarts and that credentials belong in 'secret' (write-only), never in the answer. It doesn't state permissions or what the answer does to job status, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition, no filler. 'the clock starts again' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the trigger state, the deadline side effect, and credential handling; the schema carries auth details via passport_token. Minor gaps remain around permissions and return behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'secret' semantics (write-only, for logins), but that is already documented in the schema, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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+resource ('Answer ... open question on a job') with a clear scope precondition ('status needs_info'). It is distinguishable from related siblings like get_job/get_ask, though it never names an alternative 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?

Provides a clear triggering condition — the question is open and the job is in needs_info. It omits any exclusion or explicit alternative (e.g. ask_human, get_ask) to route against, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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