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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: the sender sees each question and confidentiality follows the sender's rules. It still does not fully clarify whether the tool returns answer content, creates a question record, or notifies the sender synchronously.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the core concept, with the sender-visibility note immediately after. The first sentence is slightly oblique, but no sentence is wasted.

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 non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description partially explains return content (parts answering the question) and discloses sender visibility. It remains incomplete about what exactly is created or returned and how the optional document parameter affects behavior.

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 moderate at 67%, and the description adds some meaning by specifying one question in the user's words. However, it does not explain the undocumented question field's format or clarify the optional document parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 identifies the resource (a shared document) and the one-question scope, but it describes the result rather than the action. It does not clearly state that the tool submits a question to the document owner, so an agent may confuse it with read_shared or list_questions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as read_shared, list_questions, or message_shared_sender. The one-question scope implies usage but does not establish selection criteria or exclusions.

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