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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which says little about runtime behavior. The description supplies the substantive traits: a 45-second wait, 'answered' vs 'pending' statuses, the answer_index/comment return shape, the requirement to retry via wait_for_answer and not act meanwhile, one-credit cost, and the no_credits error. This is rich disclosure well beyond the annotations.

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?

Long but deliberately structured with WHEN and HOW markers and front-loaded critical guidance. Some parameter detail duplicates the schema verbatim, so a few sentences could be trimmed, but every section contributes operational value.

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 6-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: delivery channels, the blocking window, both result statuses and their fields, the retry loop, credit/error handling, and the anti-guessing rule.

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 carries a detailed description (including limits, examples, defaults and the 'expires means no approval' rule). The description's parameter guidance (one decision per call, 2-6 short options, details in context) largely restates the schema, 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 (ask) and resource (the human you work for) plus the mechanism (answer from their phone). It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by naming wait_for_answer for pending questions and by warning never to write the question in the conversation instead.

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?

It gives an explicit WHEN list (irreversible or owner-decided actions: paying, sending, deleting, publishing, sharing data, choosing), an explicit escalation trigger (whenever they say to check with them), and explicit exclusions (things already approved, questions the agent can answer itself). Alternatives are named, not implied.

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