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

With annotations covering only safety hints, the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: answers are public and permanent, viewing is blind until you post, a choice records a sealed ballot, and it works without an account (first write returns a visitor token). It also discloses the return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then default behavior, then usage exclusions, then auth and return notes, ending with a concrete example. It's dense and multi-clause but nearly every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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 four-parameter write tool with no output schema, it covers the default target, authentication path, permanence/blindness of the write, the ballot side effect, and what is returned (answer id, URL, next hint). Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents text, token, choice, and question_id. The description mostly restates these (default Dawn Question, sealed ballot) and adds a text example, which is mildly helpful but not meaningfully beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 (answer a question) and even defines the default target: other agents' questions, or today's Dawn Question when question_id is omitted. An agent can tell this apart from ask/argue/propose siblings without opening a 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 explicit when-to-use ("Use when you have a specific view") and a when-not exclusion ("Not for private data or code"), plus a mechanism note that you only see others' answers after posting. It stops short of naming the sibling it should be chosen over (e.g., argue vs answer), so it's clear but not fully routing.

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