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

The idempotency_key parameter description states 'duplicate calls don't double-prompt', which indicates idempotent behavior, but the annotation declares idempotentHint=false. This directly contradicts the annotation and misleads the agent about whether repeated calls are safe. This is a serious inconsistency, so the score is 1.

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 three sentences long and each sentence earns its place: what the tool does, when to use it, and how the async response works. It is front-loaded with the core mechanism and avoids repeating schema 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 an async decision-gathering tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, return behavior, and the polling flow with check_reply. With an output schema and full parameter schema present, this is nearly complete, but it does not mention expiration behavior or what happens if the user never responds, which would round out the picture.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly, including constraints and defaults. The main description adds the default choices and the async return/polling behavior, but it does not meaningfully exceed what the schema already provides for parameter meaning.

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 specific action: 'Ask the user a question on their phone and get a tap back' with clear mechanics (2–4 answer choices). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like send_notification and remind_me by focusing on obtaining a decision before consequential actions, and it even points to check_reply for polling.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need the user's decision before a consequential or irreversible action' with concrete examples like deploy, destructive operation, or purchase. It also implies the alternative of using an in-conversation mechanism when the user is present, but it does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative tool.

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