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 that submitting triggers coverage re-assessment, follow-up question selection, and automatic output routing to specific record types. It also states the return value. It omits details like auth or idempotency, but the disclosed side effects are substantial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds meaningful information about process or outcome. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, side effects, routing, and return value. An output schema exists, so return structure is delegated. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool and understand the consequences, though it could mention prerequisites like an active session.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. It only mentions 'an answer' generically; it does not clarify the expected format of answer, the meaning of session_id, or the role of question_id. Parameter names and schema types provide some hints, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit an answer') and clearly identifies the resource ('an elicitation question'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like run_elicitation by describing the submission action and its downstream effects.

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?

The description implies usage in the context of an active elicitation session (submitting an answer to a question) and clarifies what happens next (follow-up question or completion). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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