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

Discloses a consequential effect beyond the annotations: the question is closed and not re-asked unless something new arrives, which is exactly the kind of permanence an agent needs to know given destructiveHint=true. It does not address the auth/url requirements or what is returned, leaving minor gaps.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the closure consequence immediately after. 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?

For a non-idempotent, destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the action, the optional scoping, and the irreversible closing behavior. It falls short only on the transport/auth parameters and any return indication, which the schema partially covers.

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 50%; url, access_token, and api_base_url are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for the two undescribed core parameters, clarifying that text is free-form and task_id is an optional target, but leaves session_id unexplained. 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 active applicant question with free text') and flags the optional task_id target. The 'free text' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the structured sibling answer_fields, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides real conditional guidance for the failure case ('when the applicant cannot supply what it asks for now, say so and why'), but says nothing about when to choose this tool over answer_fields, submit_intake, or save_intake_draft.

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