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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does disclose the important fact that it returns 'a signed receipt,' suggesting verifiability. However, it omits potential side effects and idempotency concerns, like whether an existing answer to the same question is overwritten or the consequences of signing.

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?

The description uses just two sentences and front-loads the core action. Each clause adds some information, and there is no repetition of the schema's required fields, though the param enumeration could be made tighter.

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 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description misses crucial context: where the two questions come from, how the receipt was intended to be verified, and the intended role of each parameter. The runtime behavior is covered partially, but a newly encountered agent would lack enough details to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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?

Given the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description's notes that 'question (a or b)' and 'why' is optional add meaning that the schema alone lacks. But 'name' and 'body' are left semantically unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 opening phrase 'Stores an answer to one of the two questions' achieves a crisp verb+resource statement, and the (a or b) qualifier makes the target resource precise. It does not explicitly compare against the sibling trail_answer, so it falls short of full 5, but the purpose is effectively unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like questions_read, trail_answer, or receipt_verify. The description also omits prerequisites, such as reading the two questions first or what conditions warrant a second call.

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