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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains the awaiting_answers flag semantics, discloses that reader unlock returns HTTP 409 while the flag is true, and documents that sample asks (is_sample, dogfood / WP Integrator / WP Buyer titles) are filtered out. It stops short of stating pagination/ordering or read-only character, so not a full 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?

The critical routing and gating information is front-loaded, but the trailing pricing sentences ('Poll unlock $1. Asker posts $1–$5. Reader unlock $1. Answers are free.') are tangential to a list tool and belong with unlock_ask/poll rather than here. These dangling cost fragments dilute an otherwise tight definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does via the awaiting_answers field semantics and the row-source equivalence to GET /api/asks. Combined with the filtering rules and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4; there is no input to describe and schema coverage is moot. The description instead usefully characterizes an output field (awaiting_answers), which is a bonus rather than a parameter explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List open asks for answerers, including ones with zero answers') and pins down scope precisely, distinguishing itself from list_catalog (rows 'not on list_catalog') and confirming parity with GET /api/asks. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening anything else.

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 explicitly routes the agent: 'Answer those with answer_ask for free' and 'Do not call unlock_ask until awaiting_answers is false,' naming the sibling tools and the gating condition. Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are spelled out, including the 409 consequence of ignoring it.

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