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

Annotations already declare that this is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world, so the description is not required to carry the full safety burden. It adds that the call waits for an answer and names actions notify and publish_ask, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, blocking behavior details, or what happens when an action is invoked.

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 description is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and action details following. It is efficient, though the final sentence about querying actions is awkward and slightly unclear.

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?

This is a dispatcher-style tool with a nested params object and no output schema. The description lists action names and some params but does not explain what the actions do, what the return value looks like, or how actor is used, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 low at 33%, with only actor documented. The description partially compensates by naming the action values and their nested params, including optionality cues such as body?, level?, about?, within, and reason?. However, it does not explain the meaning, types, or requirements of most parameters beyond their names.

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?

The description states a broad purpose: "Put a question to someone and wait for the answer." It also lists action values, but it does not explain what those actions do or clearly differentiate this tool from siblings such as query or report. An agent can infer the general idea but cannot confidently tell exactly what operation will occur.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use ask versus the many sibling tools, nor when not to use it. The only routing hint is the cryptic "query actions says what each does," which is not enough to guide tool selection.

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