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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: a bounded wait of up to 40 seconds, two possible outcomes (finished answer with citations, or running again), and that the call does not consume a question. It stops short of saying whether repeated polling is expected or rate-limited, which is the only meaningful gap.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the wait semantics, then the exclusion. No filler and no repetition of annotation facts.

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?

A one-parameter polling tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs little more than trigger condition, timing behavior, and what comes back. All three are present, and return-value detail is properly left to the output schema.

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 0% and the single property is a bare string, but the description supplies the provenance of answer_id (returned by regaffairs_ask_question alongside status: "running"), which the schema does not say. That is the one thing an agent needs to populate the field correctly.

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 (fetches) and resource (result of a running answer), and explicitly ties it to the sibling regaffairs_ask_question that produces the answer_id. The closing sentence distinguishes it from starting a new question, so an agent can tell it apart from its nearest sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the precise trigger condition: use it after regaffairs_ask_question returned status: "running" with an answer_id. It also names the excluded case (not for starting a new question), leaving nothing to inference.

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