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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the omit-answer re-fetch behavior, the constraint against answering for the user, and the return outcome (next question or plan ready). Minor gap: it doesn't say what the call mutates or what happens if the answer is invalid.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by constraints and return behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no waste.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return value ('next question or plan is ready') and the optional-parameter behavior. It covers what an agent needs, though it doesn't detail error or permission behavior.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: omitting 'answer' is not merely optional, it re-fetches the current question. That clarifies the meaning of the optional parameter beyond the schema's field description.

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: sending the user's answer to a clarifying question. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like confirm_plan, update_plan, or get_plan, which do not involve answering Askli's questions.

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 explicit operating guidance: present each question exactly as asked, never answer on the user's behalf, and omit the answer to re-fetch the current question. It doesn't name alternative siblings or state prerequisites, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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