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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent and open-world, so the description carries a partial burden. It adds two useful facts not in the structured data: the exchange is private, and it does not alter agreed task requirements. It does not say what side effects occur (a persisted question, requester notification) or why the tool is flagged destructive.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action and scope constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing 'or as a participant' is slightly clipped but not wasteful.

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 write tool with no output schema and an open-world, non-idempotent profile, the description covers the request context but omits the outcome: whether a question blocks progress, whether the task can still be claimed, and how the answer arrives. Adequate but visibly incomplete.

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 67%, above the point where the schema alone suffices, and the 'question' parameter has no description at all. The description only indirectly clarifies that the recipient is 'the requester' and that actorId must be the caller's own actor (per the schema), adding little beyond what is already documented.

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 requester a private task clarification') plus the two situations in which it applies (before claiming, or as a participant). This is enough to separate it from answer_question and send_task_message, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 real context — pre-claim clarification or as an active participant — so the 'when' is implied rather than stated. It offers no exclusions and does not route the agent to alternatives (answer_question for replies, send_task_message for non-clarification contact), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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