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

The annotations declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but they do not say that the task waits for a reply. The description discloses that blocking behavior, which is significant for planning. The privacy rule about outside-team senders also adds useful context that is consistent with openWorldHint. It does not say what happens if the sender never answers.

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?

It is a single sentence: the core action and the blocking wait come first, and the privacy condition follows as a compact clause. Every part contributes useful information, and nothing is redundant.

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?

It covers purpose, blocking behavior, and a privacy caveat for a two-parameter mutation tool. However, because there is no output schema, the description should say how the sender's answer is returned and what happens on timeout or refusal. That omission leaves a meaningful gap.

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 both taskId and question are already documented, and the schema even notes that taskId comes from read_messages. The description adds no further meaning about parameter format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: asking the sender of a received message for more information. The purpose is immediately clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ask_decision, which by name suggests an overlapping use case, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 definition implies when to use it, namely when a received message lacks information, and adds a real conditional constraint about external senders and private information. It still does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool instead of ask_decision or jobs_message.

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