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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses async behavior ('allow a minute or two'), side effects ('updates the plan, may rework the research'), where results land (requirements, skym_says), and conversation visibility via claim_url. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Dense but efficient: the first clause states the purpose, and the remaining sentences add async behavior, result locations, and conversation visibility without fluff. Every sentence 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?

Behavior and result locations are well covered despite no output schema, and the polling instruction adds important operational guidance. However, the required `grant` parameter is unexplained, and the description assumes familiarity with concepts like `requirements.inputs.question` and `skym_says`, which may not be obvious to an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does richly explain `message` content. However, the required `grant` parameter is never explained, `lang` is not mentioned, and no explicit mapping of parameters is given. This leaves a required invocation field opaque.

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 and resource ('Speak to Skym inside a planned trip') and enumerates concrete request types: answer `inputs.question`, correct an assumption, or ask for a rework. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plan_trip and trip_status by tying it to an ongoing trip conversation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: only inside a planned trip, one message per turn, and poll trip_status afterwards. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the trip-scoped examples and the explicit routing to trip_status are strong guidance.

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