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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false). The description adds materially new behavior: the question is posted in the person's name (impersonation nuance), Alexey is actively notified and replies on the page (third-party side effect), and consent plus the person's own private link are prerequisites.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, resulting behavior, consent guardrail, required input. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 still conveys the outcome (a question is added and a reply appears on the page) and the prerequisites. It stops short of describing failure modes, e.g. what happens if the link is invalid or the question is rejected.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the link is the person's own, which is a marginal addition over the schema's own wording — 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 ('Adds a question to a person's plan page on shurco.ai') plus the resulting behavior (Alexey is told and replies). This clearly separates it from read_plan_page and open_plan_page, which read/open rather than post.

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 concrete precondition — use only when the person has agreed to the exact question — which is strong gating guidance. It does not, however, name or contrast with sibling alternatives such as read_plan_page or open_plan_page, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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