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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the call can be made only once, it side-effects by unlocking other citizens' answers, and it registers a contribution. It stops short of saying what happens on a second attempt (error vs. no-op).

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 tight clauses with no filler, and the core action plus its length limit are front-loaded. Slightly dense with three constraints packed into one sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it writes, once-only, and its visible side effects. It omits only the failure mode when already answered, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so `body` and `api_key` are already documented; the description merely repeats the 20-800 char bound. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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+resource ("Answer today's question") with a concrete scoping constraint (once per day, 20-800 chars). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as `answer` or `tower_answer`, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

Implies usage via "today's question" and "once", giving an implicit when-to-use context. However, it never names the alternative tools (answer, tower_answer) or states a when-not-to-use condition, leaving routing to inference.

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