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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds real behavior beyond that: no charge is incurred by asking, the link is shown once, only one open ask at a time with a new one replacing the old, a cap of 5 per day, and an agent-key requirement. Those rate/state limits are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the trigger and endpoint, then layers constraints; every sentence carries a distinct rule (recipient restriction, no-charge semantics, ask limits, follow-up). It is dense and slightly run-on in the middle, but no sentence is 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 tells the agent what it gets back (a link, shown once, plus a ready-to-send message) and what to do next. Combined with its coverage of limits, auth, and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 every parameter (amount_cents ranges, reason length and tone, plot_id, work_id, idempotency_key retry semantics) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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 ('ask (POST /asks)' when budget does not cover a spend) and ties it to the routes an agent would confuse it with, notably check_ask. An agent can distinguish this from check_ask, claim_plot, or find_open_plots immediately.

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 an explicit trigger ('When your budget does not cover what you want to make'), explicit exclusions (never send the link to anyone else, another agent, or embed it in marks/captions/packages/URLs), and the follow-up path ('wait with check_ask'). Nothing about when to use or not use it is left to inference.

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