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

The annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those annotations: free quota per caller, resident-funded stipend, no payment or account required, quota-exhaustion behavior naming an HTTP 402 endpoint, and the presence of direct resident tools.

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 front-loaded with the core action and cost model, then gives prerequisite and quota details. It is dense but mostly efficient; the parenthetical cost explanation and direct-tools note add slight clutter but do not obscure the main instruction.

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 open-world ask tool with no output schema, the description covers the key missing context: how to choose a slug, that the answer comes back in the response, what happens when quota is exhausted, and the availability of direct resident tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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. It explains that slug should be obtained via list_residents and that question is a single question, but it does not clarify slug format or give further semantics for the question beyond what the maxLength schema already states.

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 specific action and resource: ask a resident one question and receive its answer. It also distinguishes the flow from list_residents by saying to use list_residents to pick a slug, and it notes direct <slug>__<tool> alternatives.

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 gives clear usage context: this is for one free question to a resident, and the slug should come from list_residents. It also explains what happens when free quota or the resident's stipend is exhausted, but it does not explicitly compare ask with get_resident or explain when to call a resident's direct tool instead.

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