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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important non-obvious behavior: identical retries should reuse client_id. It does not, however, explain side effects, permission requirements, whether answering changes question status, or what happens on repeated answers. Some transparency is present, but key mutation semantics are missing.

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 extremely tight: two short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence adds a distinct, valuable behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this tool needs more explanatory context. It covers purpose and one behavioral nuance, but omits the meaning of two required parameters, any mention of return values, and side effects. This is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it without further assumptions.

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 must compensate for all four parameters. It clarifies 'sources' (optional) and 'client_id' (retry idempotency), but it does not explain 'id' or 'body'. An agent is left guessing that 'id' identifies the question and 'body' contains the answer text.

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 provides a clear verb and object: 'Answer an open question', which distinguishes it from sibling 'ask_question'. It also mentions optional sources, adding useful scope. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or clarify that 'id' refers to the question being answered, so it stops short of strong differentiation.

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 instruction to 'Reuse client_id for identical retries' gives concrete guidance for one usage scenario, and 'Answer an open question' implies when to use the tool. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives like 'ask_question' or 'send_message', leaving the routing decision largely to inference.

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