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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is an asynchronous check where a reply may never arrive, but says nothing about return states, idempotency, cost of repeated polling, or the payment flow hinted at by the schema's 'payment' parameter.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary action first and the precondition parenthetically attached. No filler; the only mild inefficiency is that the caveat about late/no answer could be read as behavioral rather than usage guidance, but it earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a check returns (e.g., pending vs. answered vs. payment_required), and it omits that entirely. For a polling-style tool this is a meaningful gap, though the core precondition and async caveat are covered.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by tying 'ticket' to the output of talk_to_moran, but contributes nothing about the 'payment' parameter or its relationship to a payment_required status.

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 check (whether Moran answered a queued message) and anchors it to the sibling that produced the ticket (talk_to_moran status 'queued'). It clearly distinguishes the pending/answered inquiry from the act of sending, though it doesn't differentiate from the other Moran siblings, which are unrelated.

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?

The parenthetical gives an explicit precondition: call this only after talk_to_moran returned status 'queued' with a ticket. The note that she may answer late or not at all gives the agent realistic expectations for retry/no-retry decisions, but no explicit when-not or polling cadence guidance is offered.

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