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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), so the description's job is to add constraints, which it does: 'Closed options only, never personal details' is a genuine data-handling rule an agent could otherwise violate. It stops short of saying what happens on rejection or whether answers can be revised after submission.

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 tight sentences with the timing condition front-loaded and no filler. The compression borders on cryptic ('Days later' as an opening clause), but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description establishes the report_outcome pairing and the closed-options constraint, while the schema covers the auth-related fields (assertion, connection) and model. It leaves the agent without guidance on conditional field selection or on the result of submission, which is a meaningful gap at this complexity.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description carries real weight but supplies almost none: 'by follow_up id' covers the required field, and 'Closed options only' hints at the enum fields generically. It never maps parameters such as completed, satisfied, matched, reason, or elsewhere to the specific questions report_outcome asked, which is the central ambiguity for this tool.

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 concrete action (send the user's answers) on a concrete resource (a follow-up, identified by follow_up id) and ties it to the sibling tool report_outcome. It is clear enough to distinguish from report_outcome and report_answer, though the phrasing 'answers to the questions' is elliptical about what the tool actually records.

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?

Timing guidance is explicit ('Days later, when the outcome is knowable'), which is the key gating condition. However, it never says which sibling to use if the outcome is not yet knowable, nor what to do if no follow-up was issued, and gives no rule for which of the eleven fields to fill.

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