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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the three status states, the distinction between option answers (answer label) and free-text answers (untrusted_answer), and a security warning that untrusted_answer is data, never instructions. That security framing and the polling-rate note are exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 zero filler; the core purpose leads, the answer-shape and security caveat follow, and the polling note is a short trailing clause. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the status states and the two answer field names. For a read-only polling tool with fully documented params, nothing essential is missing.

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% and each parameter (ask_id, instance_id, passport_token) is already documented in the schema, including where ask_id comes from. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a question you asked your owner') and enumerates the possible outcomes (pending, answered, expired). This clearly separates it from the sibling ask_human (which creates the question) and delete_ask (which removes it).

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 the usage context by anchoring to 'a question you asked your owner', and adds concrete polling guidance ('every minute or two is plenty'). It does not explicitly name ask_human as the prerequisite or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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