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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: on the target item the workflow moves on, while on other items the details are kept as a message for the business. This helps the agent anticipate side effects without contradicting 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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and trigger; the second concisely states the side-effect distinction. 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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the behavioral outcome, which is sufficient for a 6-parameter tool. The required item_id has no description in either the schema or the tool description, and there is no output schema, leaving minor gaps, but overall the context is strong.

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 high (83%), with detailed descriptions for pass, key, details, access_token, and idempotency_key. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the purpose of 'details', 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 uses a specific verb ('Answer') and a clear resource ('what the business asked about an item'), and it explicitly ties the trigger to the sibling get_item_status. This distinguishes it from send_message or request_quote, making the purpose 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?

The description gives a clear context for use: call it when get_item_status indicates a detail is needed. It also explains the behavioral difference on the target item versus other items, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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