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 the auth model (unlock_token vs paid key), exact error semantics (402 vs 401, and that an unpaid token is an error rather than a locked flag), and pricing. It stops short of describing return structure, pagination, or whether results are immutable once unlocked, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

The telegraphic sentences are short and the core requirement is front-loaded, but the pricing lines ('Poll unlock $1. Asker posts $1–$5. Reader unlock $1. Answers are free.') are tangential noise for an agent trying to invoke the tool and dilute the signal.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, auth and error behavior are covered well, and the answer_count/aggregates.count hint partially describes the return. Missing pieces are the meaning of slug, the lock/pay flow relative to sibling tools, and any return-shape detail, leaving it adequate but incomplete.

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 0% and only one of two parameters (unlock_token) is explained — the description clarifies that it is optional when a paid key is used, which is meaningful given the schema marks only slug required. The slug parameter is never described, so the description does not fully compensate 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?

The description says it returns 'aggregates after pay' and that answer_count mirrors aggregates.count, which hints at the resource, but 'aggregates' is never defined and the resource is not named in a way that distinguishes it from get_ask or unlock_ask. An agent can infer this is a post-unlock results reader but must guess at the distinction from siblings.

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?

It states the prerequisite (unlock_token or a paid API key) and the failure modes (402 for unpaid token, 401 for missing/invalid credentials), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, it never contrasts itself with alternatives such as unlock_ask, unlock_poll, or get_ask, so the routing decision 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.