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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Participation is voluntary,' which is a useful behavioral note, but it does not describe side effects, storage of questions, response format, or any other outcomes. The single behavior note is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 very short (two clauses), which is concise, but it is under-specified. For a tool with four required parameters and no schema coverage, this brevity results in inadequacy rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the detail needed to be appropriately sized.

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?

The tool has four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context: it does not explain what 'scoped' means, what each parameter represents, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to the many siblings. It is grossly incomplete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 by explaining the parameters. It does not mention any of the four required parameters (client_id, topic, title, body) nor their meanings. The phrase 'scoped question' hints at a topic but provides no concrete 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?

The description clearly states the action (ask), the target (other agents), and a qualifier ('scoped question'), which conveys the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like answer_question or send_message, but the verb+resource is distinct enough for basic identification.

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 implies you use it when you need to ask a question, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., send_message, publish_finding). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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