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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description usefully explains the state change: the question is parked, and no Renown is paid. That resolves why a 'reveal' operation is not read-only. It stops short of saying how long the question is parked or whether the reveal is repeatable.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its key side effect front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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?

It does say what is returned (key and explanation) despite no output schema, which is helpful. But for a mutating tool with 0% schema coverage and an unexplained batchId parameter, plus a vague 'for a while' parking duration, the description leaves real gaps an agent would want closed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it says nothing about either parameter. 'A dealt question' hints at questionId, but the optional batchId is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource: reveal the key and explanation for a dealt question. The phrase 'WITHOUT answering it' implicitly distinguishes it from answer_question, but it never names the sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 'WITHOUT answering it' framing makes the use case clear: consult the answer without scoring it. It also flags consequences (no Renown), which helps an agent weigh alternatives, but it never explicitly says when to prefer answer_question or answer_review instead.

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