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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description goes further by revealing concrete side effects: the answer is saved in the person's name, the same question is never asked again, and if it is the last required answer the application is submitted. This gives the agent meaningful expectations beyond the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the critical constraint 'Only give an answer the person actually stated' is preserved as a clear final warning. Every sentence contributes necessary 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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its side effects, and a key safety constraint. It does not explain return values or errors, but that is less critical given the simple shape and the strong behavioral warnings already present.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps application_id to 'one application,' question_id to 'one screening question,' and answer to the person's actual stated answer, adding semantic meaning. It does not describe ID formats or origin, but the domain mapping is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 ('Record'), a specific resource (one screening question on one application), and the unusual scope: the answer is written in the person's name and saved to their answer book. It also distinguishes itself from generic save/answer tools by noting that the question is never asked again and that completing the last required answer submits the application.

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 description conveys a clear context—answering a screening question on a specific application—and includes an important constraint: 'Only give an answer the person actually stated.' However, it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives like save_answer, so an agent must infer when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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