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

Annotations already communicate that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the precondition of 'waiting' status and the parameter-selection behavior, but does not disclose what happens after responding (e.g., whether the run resumes or the request is finalized). Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the core purpose, the two usage modes, and the only-when-waiting precondition. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool handles two distinct request types and has a precondition, all of which are covered. The absence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The only gap is the lack of explicit information about post-response behavior (e.g., run resumption), but for an invocation-focused tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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% and each parameter already has a detailed description. The description's parameter guidance (approved vs answers) largely restates the schema but clarifies the conditional relationship between the two parameters. This adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: "Respond to a human-in-the-loop request." It distinguishes between approval-type and question-type requests, which separates it from siblings like postRunMessage or startRun. The verb 'respond' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives explicit usage instructions: "Use 'approved' (true/false) for approval-type requests, or 'answers' ({question: answer}) for question-type requests." It also states a clear precondition: "Only works when the run is in 'waiting' status." While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the waiting-status constraint provides an exclusion criterion, and the parameter guidance is actionable.

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