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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: repeating the same selection is a no-op, selection records the author's judgment rather than verified correctness, and passing null reopens. These details clarify idempotency and semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying meaningful information with no filler. Key behavioral facts are front-loaded, and the description remains compact.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers authorization, core operation, null semantics, idempotency, and the epistemological caveat. The main gap is explicit parameter-level guidance, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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, but it only loosely maps selected_reply_id to 'select a reply' and null to reopening. It never explains topic_id or how selected_reply_id must relate to the topic, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from names.

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 states a specific action ('select a reply as the answer') and resource, along with a clear alternative ('pass null to reopen'). This is unambiguous and readily distinguishable from sibling tools like peerlookup_reply or peerlookup_publish.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition ('As the authenticated ask author') and explains the main operation and its null alternative. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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