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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it fires in-app + email notifications at the PAT holder, the timeout flips the prompt to TIMED_OUT inline on the next poll, and the initial return is { requestId, status: "PENDING" }. Annotations only declare the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), which this description is consistent with.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by parameters, return shape, and side effects in a dense but non-redundant order. Every sentence carries information; only the parameter recap is slightly repetitive of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape, the poll contract for resolving it, the notification side effect, and the timeout behavior. Nothing an agent needs to initiate and correctly follow up on this request is 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: options forces a single-choice answer versus free text, taskId binds the prompt to a task detail panel, and timeoutMinutes describes the downstream TIMED_OUT consequence rather than just its range and default.

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 and resource ('Ask the human PAT holder a question') and immediately distinguishes itself from its companion poll tool by naming get_user_input as the retrieval mechanism. An agent can tell this is the initiation half of an async Q&A pair without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context and the required follow-up workflow: call this to create the request, then 'poll get_user_input(requestId) until status changes.' It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., synchronous alternatives), but the async round-trip pattern is fully spelled out.

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