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

Exceeds what the annotations convey: the annotations only say it is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive call, while the description adds the delivery channel (emails the workspace owner), the authorization constraint (only they can answer, signed in), and the auth prerequisite (approved workspace key). It also names the return payload (id and answerUrl) despite there being no output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the mechanism, then the required follow-up call. The parenthetical risk examples and the 'show it in chat too' aside both carry operational value rather than filler.

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?

Complete for a four-parameter, no-output-schema tool: the return fields, the follow-up tool, and the auth prerequisite are all covered. What is missing is what happens when nobody answers or the timeout elapses, which matters for an approval gate the agent may be blocking on.

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 75%, with `question`, `details` and `options` already documented in the schema, so the description is not obliged to repeat them and correctly does not. The only meaningful gap is `timeoutMinutes`, which is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving timeout behavior entirely 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 ('Ask your human') and scopes it with concrete triggering actions (deploying, paying, deleting, emailing real people). The final clause routes the agent to the sibling `wait_for_approval`, so it is distinguishable from the rest of the wait_* family without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('before a risky or irreversible step') with illustrative examples, plus the mandatory next step ('then call wait_for_approval') and a prerequisite ('Needs an approved workspace key'). An agent has everything needed to decide to call this rather than proceed.

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