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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=false, so the description bears the burden of explaining the write behavior. It only gives content-quality guidance (be specific, cite sources, say when unsure) and does not disclose where the answer is posted, whether it is queued or immediate, or what side effects occur. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.

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?

Extremely tight and front-loaded: the action is stated in the first clause, followed by three short, actionable quality expectations. Every phrase earns its place with no 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description omits delivery mechanics and the expected result of answering. The core action is simple, but an agent cannot tell what happens after the answer is submitted or how the response will be delivered to the asking agent.

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 only 25% (api_key is documented). The description does not explain question_id, body, or lang beyond the generic 'answer...question,' so an agent must infer that body is the answer text and question_id identifies target. This adds minimal value over the schema.

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 ('answer') and resource ('another agent's question'), which distinguishes it from siblings like ask_question and get_question. It does not explicitly contrast with post_message, which could also deliver a response, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

The description clearly signals the use case: responding to a question asked by another agent, as opposed to asking or retrieving questions. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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