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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful behavioral nuance of 'Poll', indicating repeated non-blocking checks may be needed until the answer is available. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single sentence carries the full purpose, method, and parameter relationship with no wasted words. The verb is front-loaded, and the description is immediately actionable without redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with a single required parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It names the source tool (ask_a_locator), specifies the parameter source, and uses 'Poll' to convey the expected interaction pattern.

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%: the schema already states that question_id is 'The id returned by ask_a_locator.' The description only mentions 'by question_id' and adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Poll') with a clear resource ('the answer to an ask_a_locator question') and identifies the key identifier (question_id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ask_a_locator, which creates the question rather than retrieving its answer.

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 clearly implies when to use it: after calling ask_a_locator, using the returned question_id to retrieve the answer. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but the relationship to ask_a_locator is explicit enough for a single-purpose tool.

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