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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: answers are written personally by Emil, delivery is asynchronous (usually hours, requiring a realistic deadline), the tool returns a question_id rather than an answer, and the free-pilot quota of one question caps usage. It also warns that context must be sufficient to avoid follow-up, which is the key behavioral constraint on input quality.

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?

The content is front-loaded — purpose first, then exclusions, then the pilot quota, then the async/polling mechanics — and nearly every clause carries operational weight. It is somewhat dense and reads as a single run-on paragraph, but there is little that could be cut without losing required behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does: a question_id that is polled via get_answer. Combined with the quota, async timing, and input-quality expectations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and handle the result.

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 are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces two of them ('Include enough context to answer without follow-up' and 'give a realistic deadline') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, and never mentions the optional options or agent_id parameters.

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 — asking a named real human (Emil Hyltoft Eriksen) for lived experience and personal opinion — and illustrates it with concrete example phrasings. It clearly bounds the purpose ('Not facts, not professional medical/legal/financial advice') so the agent can distinguish it from any factual lookup tool, and it names the sibling get_answer used to retrieve the result.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios ('what happened when I…', 'what would a real person actually do', 'how would this feel to a human') and explicit exclusions (not facts, not medical/legal/financial advice). It also states the hard operational constraint (exactly one question in total, then status pilot_full) and the follow-up path via get_answer(question_id), so the agent knows both the trigger and the alternative.

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