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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent) by disclosing the asynchronous human-curation model, that questions may be selected for video episodes, the return value (question id), the rate limit of 5/day, and the no-financial-advice policy. An agent knows the submission is non-immediate and not guaranteed to be answered.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and audience, then the workflow, then the constraints. The topic enumeration in the first parenthesis is slightly long but earns its place by defining accepted subject matter.

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-style submission tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (question id), how to retrieve results (get_question_status), constraints, and the editorial policy. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (question, lang, asked_by) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the 500-character limit and the 'no financial advice' constraint, adding little beyond what structured fields already provide — baseline 3.

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 ('Send a question to Orb Studio's AI news anchor David') and scopes the subject matter (news, geopolitics, economy, crypto, energy, AI). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_david_episodes or get_question_status, which would otherwise be ambiguous neighbors.

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?

Explicitly describes the submit-then-poll workflow: 'Returns a question id; check it later with get_question_status' names the follow-up tool and when to use it. It also gives enforceable limits (500 characters, 5 per day, no financial advice), though it never states when not to use the tool or what happens if a question is rejected.

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