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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the full workflow: the task is paused as blocked, the recipient is notified, the task resumes at the same point on answer, and the result surfaces via the next check_in. That is precisely the kind of state-transition context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage condition and the state transition, then a compact second clause covering resumption. The trailing API reference URL is marginally useful but is the one element not strictly earning its place in the prose.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining how the answer is delivered (via the next check_in), so the agent knows what to do after invoking. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing material is missing.

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%, including the Tango Lite default for task_id and the approver/owner default for to_user_id, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the 'ONE person' recipient framing, no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a human a question) and constrains scope to 'ONE specific fact or decision from ONE person', which implicitly separates it from broadcast-style siblings like send_message or add_comment. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly (e.g. flag_needs_more_info, answer_question), so differentiation still requires inference.

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 triggering condition: 'Use when you need ONE specific fact or decision from ONE person before you can continue.' That is a clear when-to-use statement, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for adjacent cases (e.g. when to flag_needs_more_info instead).

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