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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the answer is sealed into the principal's card as an amendment, i.e. a durable record rather than a transient message, which is consistent with the non-idempotent hint. It also imposes a conduct constraint (relay verbatim, never substitute your own answer) that annotations cannot express.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the effect, then the constraint. No filler, no repetition of schema content beyond what reinforces intent.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations supplying the safety profile, the description covers trigger, action, persistence effect and the key prohibition. It does not say what happens after the answer is relayed (e.g. whether the room resumes), which is the only meaningful remaining 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (link, answer) are already fully documented, including the secrecy requirement on the link. The description's 'question verbatim' and 'their exact answer' reinforce the answer parameter but largely restate the schema's 'in their words'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a concrete verb (ask and relay) and a concrete resource (the principal's answer, sealed into their card), plus the trigger state ('when the room is paused for your principal'). An agent can tell this is the escalation-answer path rather than a generic message send, but no sibling (e.g. send_envelope, seal_intent_card) is named to sharpen the boundary.

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 'when' is explicit: the room is paused awaiting your principal. A clear prohibition ('Never answer on their behalf') functions as a when-not, which is stronger guidance than most tools give. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the case where the room is not paused or no principal is present.

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