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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that omitted questions take their recommended answer, that a second call is refused, that every answer must go in one call, and that the operation is free. The refusal behavior corroborates idempotentHint=false rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loads the core action and uses short labeled sections ('Who answers') that scan well. It runs long relative to a 2-parameter call, but most sentences contribute routing or behavioral detail rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still closes the loop by telling the agent to poll get_import after and that the template is usually written in a few minutes. Combined with the annotation set, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the nested answer fields (question_id, value, path, answered_by) are already fully documented. The description usefully reinforces the value constraint ('nothing else is accepted') and the path rule, but adds little that the schema does not already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('answer the questions get_import shows on an import in `awaiting_answers`') and explicitly ties itself to the sibling that surfaces the questions. An agent can distinguish it from get_import without opening either schema.

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 explicit when/when-not routing: answer yourself when evidence decides it (with concrete examples), ask the person when it concerns their business. It also names get_import as the follow-up step and warns to ask the person before submitting because a second call is refused.

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