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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining that the tool returns runId and leaseToken for resuming the same attempt, that an answer from another channel is returned instead of an error, and that invented answers are treated as worse than no answer. It directly addresses idempotency-related behavior without contradicting the idempotentHint=true annotation.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence earns its place by adding behavioral or usage constraints. It is slightly verbose in the warning about invented answers, but the dramatic framing reinforces a critical safety rule without becoming irrelevant.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect in return (runId and leaseToken) and how to handle edge cases like declined answers, absent users, and answers arriving from another channel. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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 all three parameters (value, answer, questionId) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the answer must be 'their words' but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Bring back what the user said to a question you raised with request_input, and pick the work up again.' It clearly distinguishes this from its companion sibling request_input by framing it as the follow-up step. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-call guidance: 'Call it the moment they answer, with their words.' It also gives explicit when-not-to-call guidance: 'If they declined to answer, or nobody was there, do not call this: leave the question in their queue.' This leaves no ambiguity about selecting it over alternatives.

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