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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered 'oldest first', each entry carries its form and answers, and state filters by open/resolved/canceled. No return format for pagination is given, but it meaningfully enriches the read semantics.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the ordering/content and the state filter. No filler; every phrase 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (each interaction's form and answers) and the ordering. For a 7-parameter read tool with high schema coverage and clear annotations, this is nearly complete, though it could mention pagination behavior expected of cursor/limit.

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 86%, so most parameters (limit, cursor, IDs) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the state filter by naming its three enum values, but adds little beyond what the enum already supplies. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists an agent's permission prompts and ask_question questions') and even describes the returned content (form and answers). It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling agents_interactions_resolve, which an agent might confuse it with.

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 the use case (listing an agent's pending prompts/questions) and explains the state filter values, which hints at when to use it. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and never points to the sibling agents_interactions_resolve for handling those interactions.

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