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

Goes well beyond the annotations: declares the Microsoft sign-in prerequisite and blog.write scope, explains that the answer is persisted as a draft source read by fact-check, and distinguishes chat-mode from form-mode behavior. This explains why readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false 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?

One dense paragraph whose sentences all carry load — auth, constraint, return path, persistence, prohibition — but the nested parentheticals and the opening auth detail ahead of the core purpose make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 5-parameter, non-idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers what the schema cannot: the auth prerequisite, the two-call interaction loop, and where the answer lands. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining the form/chat branch and that the answer must be recorded "word for word." It does not discuss passage or id semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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?

"One question only the engineer can answer... returned for you to ask in chat" states a specific verb (ask), a specific resource (the author/engineer), and the scope constraint that separates it from generic search or draft tools. The parenthetical examples (what was measured, who it was for, what happened) make the intent unambiguous.

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?

Clear triggering context (only questions the engineer alone can answer) plus an explicit prohibition: "Never answer it yourself." It also explains the two-step flow — call again with their answer — but names no sibling tool as an alternative, so routing versus check_draft or quiz_me is left to inference.

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