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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly/idempotent), and the description goes well beyond them: polling semantics, the status lifecycle, what activity shows while running, the dual text/HTML card representation, and the crucial constraint that in-HTML buttons only navigate while executing actions must happen in the HeyAnon app.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and polling instruction, then progressively describes activity, cards, and HTML handling. Dense but mostly earns its length; the return-value enumeration at the end is slightly redundant with the output 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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description resolves the genuinely ambiguous parts: the status lifecycle, the two content blocks, and how a client should render HTML vs describe text. An agent has everything needed to call and present results.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage whose schema text ('Message ID returned by ask_anon') matches the description's 'by its Message ID'. Nothing new is added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (state of a message) and ties it directly to the sibling that creates it ('sent with ask_anon'), so an agent can place it in the ask_anon polling workflow without opening a 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?

Tells the agent to poll until status is 'done'/'failed'/'aborted' and explains what 'running' means, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed. It doesn't explicitly say 'call this after ask_anon returns an id' or give an alternative sibling, but the ask_anon linkage covers most of the intent.

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