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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the write-safety profile is supplied structurally. The description's retry sentence ('Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying; a repeat returns the same question') adds real behavioral context about repeat behavior, but much of the rest restates enum values and parameter names already in the schema. Return shape and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the retry caveat second. The parenthetical parameter listing is somewhat redundant with the schema but stays short enough not to bloat the definition.

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 five-parameter write tool with annotations covering mutation and idempotency semantics, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: what it does, the optional article association, and retry behavior. An agent could still wonder whether the created question is returned with an id, but no output schema exists to demand that explanation.

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 only 20% — only idempotency_key is documented in the schema, and the description reserializes that same guidance. It does add genuine meaning for sop_id ('of the article it is about') and clarifies channel's purpose, but question and asked_by_name get no added semantics beyond self-evident 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 verb and resource — logging an unanswered handbook question — and clarifies scope with 'a question the handbook does not answer', which distinguishes it from answering or editing handbook content. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with (answer_handbook_question), so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Logs a question the handbook does not answer' implies the triggering condition, and the retry sentence gives operational guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over answer_handbook_question or add_training_question, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites for choosing it.

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