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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds real value beyond that: the last answer finalizes the interview (a state transition the agent cannot infer from annotations) and imposes a content restriction ('no secrets or contacts'). It still doesn't say what happens to prior answers or what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the key parameter and constraint, then the terminal behavior. The 'no secrets or contacts' clause duplicates the schema, which is the only real waste.

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 full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: action, required identifier, content constraint and the finalization behavior. It could say more about the wait_s async path and retry semantics, but the schema already handles those.

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 all five parameters, including enums, ranges and the idempotency pattern, are documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'Pass question_id' and restates the no-secrets rule already present on text, adding no syntax or format detail of its own.

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 ('Answer the current question'), and the tool name plus title anchor it to the interview flow. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like interview_finish or answer_bar_question, but the action is unambiguous.

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 last answer finalizes' hints at when the interview ends, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus interview_status or interview_finish, or on preconditions such as requiring an active interview.

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