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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world call. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it consumes credits like a normal answer, and it does not create a customer conversation. It does not say whether tests are logged or retrievable afterward, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first delivers purpose and the no-conversation constraint, the second delivers the cost implication. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 usefully states what comes back (answer and sources) and warns about credit consumption. Only the persistence/visibility of test results is left unstated, which is minor for a two-parameter tool.

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 only 50% — agent_id is documented in the schema but question carries no description in either place. The description adds nothing about what the question should contain or any formatting constraints, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action (ask the agent a question), the result (answer plus sources), and the key scope distinction from siblings — no customer conversation is created, which separates it from reply_to_customer/get_conversation. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

'Ask your own agent a question and see its answer and the sources it used' gives a clear context for use, and the no-conversation clause implicitly steers the agent away from reply_to_customer. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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