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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior: it consumes the plan's question limit, takes effect only from the next run, and is deduped by text so a repeat call returns the existing question rather than creating a duplicate. That is exactly the kind of consequence-level detail annotations cannot carry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the quota cost, then the idempotency guarantee. No filler and no redundancy with the 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 4-param create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, quota impact, dedupe behavior and run timing. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned question object, but the idempotency sentence gives enough of the return behavior for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the confirm_new_engines safety flag and the omitted-engines default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description gives a precise verb+resource+effect: it adds a buyer question to a topic and schedules it to be asked on every engine from the next run. That is far more than a restatement of the name/title. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling (the closest, add_brand, is unrelated), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Use is implied (this is how you track a buyer question) and the topic_id description points to list_topics, but the description never says when to use this versus another tool or states prerequisites. It does imply the question consumes a plan quota, which is useful context but not routing guidance.

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