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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries real weight and does: it discloses the 45-second wait, the three terminal statuses and their meanings ('expired' means no approval), the warning to wait before acting, and two named error conditions including the 6-questions-per-minute rate limit. None of this contradicts the annotations — the tool itself creates a question rather than destroying anything.

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?

It is one dense block of prose, but nearly every sentence earns its place and it is front-loaded with the core action before moving to routing, constraints, and result shapes. Some parameter guidance overlaps the schema text verbatim in spirit, which keeps it from a 5 on efficiency.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values — and it does, enumerating answered/pending/expired, the fields that accompany each (answer, answer_index, comment, question_id), and the required follow-up call. Errors and rate limits are also covered, which is more than sufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 100% and the parameter descriptions are already detailed, so the baseline is 3; the description adds guidance on intent rather than restating bounds — write `question` in the user's language so it stands alone, default Yes/No when options are omitted, and put decision details in `context`. 'Ask one decision per call' adds a constraint not expressed in the schema, though a fair amount of the parameter advice duplicates what the schema already says.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Send a question to the user's phone and return their answer' — and names the delivery channels (Telegram, email, WhatsApp/Signal). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling wait_for_answer by explaining the 45-second wait and the pending handoff, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use triggers (before paying, sending a message or email, deleting, publishing, signing up, or when the user asks to be checked with via Aval), explicit when-not conditions (already approved in conversation, or questions the agent can answer itself), and the follow-up path for pending results. It even constrains granularity: 'Ask one decision per call.'

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