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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavior. It states the tool is a read ('Read'), a poll not a subscription, explains the state semantics, and notes authentication is not required. This gives the agent a complete safety and behavior profile.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and flows logically from usage to output to polling behavior to authentication. Every sentence contributes essential information, particularly the state enumeration, so it is appropriately sized for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by fully explaining the return structure: the `state` and `answer`, plus all five possible state values and their meanings. It also covers the polling model and the lack of authentication, making the tool self-contained. Given the simple one-parameter schema, this is complete.

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?

The schema already documents the `ref` parameter at 100% coverage, including its origin and importance. The description merely repeats the schema's message without adding syntax, validation, or additional meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Read the answer to a question that had to go to a human.' It further ties the tool to ask_business_freeform and explains the output states, distinguishing it from siblings like check_replies. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use the `escalation.ref` that ask_business_freeform returned when its outcome was "escalated".' It also provides cadence guidance ('Come back later rather than in a loop'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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