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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the four terminal states (queued, answered, declined, expired), the asynchronous nature of the operation, and a polling rate constraint. It omits edge behavior such as what happens for an unknown or expired question_id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 with no filler. The return value is front-loaded, the status vocabulary follows, and the polling constraint closes it out — every sentence earns its place.

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 and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it covers the return states, the async contract, and the source of the required parameter. Error handling for invalid or expired IDs is the only notable gap.

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 0% and there is only one parameter, so the description must supply meaning. It does: question_id is explicitly the identifier produced by ask_human_perspective, giving the agent the provenance needed to call this correctly. No format details (e.g., ID shape) are given, so not a 5.

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 ('Get') and resource (status and, when ready, the answer to a question_id), and anchors it to the companion tool ask_human_perspective. An agent can immediately tell this is the read-back half of the ask/get pair rather than either sibling.

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?

It establishes the usage pattern clearly: this is an asynchronous polling tool and must not be called more often than every 15 minutes, which is exactly the operational guidance an agent needs. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative, but the context is unambiguous.

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