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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: this is a polling tool and should be repeated until status='done'. It does not explain what happens on failure or timeout, but the output schema covers return values.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the polling instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 simple one-parameter polling tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage pattern and cadence. The main remaining gap is explicit guidance on sourcing the session_id and handling non-'done' terminal states.

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?

The single required parameter session_id has 0% schema description coverage and is not explicitly explained in the description. The description implies the session comes from a send_message call, but it does not state that session_id is the value to pass or where to obtain it.

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 states a specific action (collect the answer) tied to a specific originating call (send_message that returned status='working'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling send_message tool, though the phrasing 'answer' is slightly less precise than 'result'.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition (after send_message returns status='working') and polling guidance (~every 30s until status='done'). It does not mention failure/timeout cases or alternatives, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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