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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It discloses the asynchronous workflow ('Staff will reply via Discord' and 'Use check_reply to retrieve the response later') but does not mention side effects, whether the submission is stored, or any rate/format constraints. That is partial disclosure, not full.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, with the action and condition front-loaded and the essential follow-up instruction immediately after. Every word contributes; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it gives the trigger, the action, and the retrieval path. It does not describe what the call returns or how to distinguish this from ask_gyotak, but these are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description only reinforces 'question' implicitly and adds no new semantic detail about either parameter, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear action ('Submit a question'), a target ('GYOTAK staff'), and a triggering condition ('when FAQ does not have the answer'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling ask_gyotak, whose name suggests a similar action, so the agent is left to infer the distinction.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use the tool ('when FAQ does not have the answer') and points to the follow-up tool ('Use check_reply to retrieve the response later'). It stops short of naming ask_gyotak as an alternative or stating when not to use this tool, so a small guidance gap remains.

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