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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: crowd split only appears once answers close, and the outcome is 'the first stored Activity score at or after the resolve time; void when none lands within 3 hours'. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded correctly ('One question by id...'), but the remainder is a dense run-on paragraph mixing payload fields, OpenTimestamps mechanics, and a REST-equivalence note. Much of the content is justified by the absent output schema, yet the phrasing is packed enough to impede fast parsing.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: statement, nulls, answer, crowd split, outcome/void rule, right/wrong, and the proofs[] structure with the digest equality check. Only minor details like auth or error behavior are 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that id is a uuid sourced from open_questions. The description adds only the trivial 'by id' framing, so baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource+scope: 'One question by id, open or resolved', which an agent can distinguish from the sibling list tool open_questions. However, it never names open_questions or any alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the id must come from open_questions or the REST list endpoint (that hint actually lives in the schema, not the description). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so an agent must infer the lookup-by-id workflow.

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