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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that an un-paid unlock returns locked=true with omitted answers, that this is a normal result rather than a 402, and that invalid tokens yield a 401. Pricing tiers are also noted. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but written as telegraphic fragments ('Poll unlock $1. Asker posts $1–$5...') whose connection to the read operation is unclear. Pricing sentences may not earn their place in a tool description focused on invocation.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the important behavioral outcomes (locked state, 401 errors, token sourcing). It does not describe the answer payload shape, but overall it is enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 50%: unlock_token has its own schema description, ask_id has none. The description adds sourcing detail for unlock_token (create_ask / callback) and reinforces the anti-scraping warning, but ask_id's meaning is left to the schema alone, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Read an ask.' The 'Hold/relay step 5' prefix signals workflow position but is cryptic without prior context. It distinguishes itself implicitly from unlock_ask by describing reading with a token, though it never names the sibling directly.

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 concrete invocation guidance: pass unlock_token from create_ask or the unlock.completed callback, and do not scrape the success URL. However, it never states when to use get_ask versus sibling unlock_ask, nor any prerequisites or ordering beyond 'step 5'.

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