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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and non-readOnly, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the live-status precondition ('Only works while the status is pending') and the cost model ('Free'), neither of which appears in annotations. It stops short of saying what error or state results if the question is already answered, but the annotation set covers the mutation risk.

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 short sentences: action and effect first, then usage conditions, then the precondition and cost. No filler, and the routing 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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with a fully described schema and meaningful annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, and the pending-only constraint. No output schema exists, so only the post-call failure behavior is left implicit.

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 sole parameter, question_id, is documented in the schema as 'returned by ask_human, copied exactly'. The description adds no extra syntax or format guidance for it, so the baseline 3 for schema-heavy definitions 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 ('Withdraw') and resource ('a question that is still pending') plus the consequence ('the human can no longer answer it'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings ask_human (creates) and wait_for_answer (blocks), since this one terminates a pending question.

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 an explicit when-to-use clause with three concrete triggers: the human answered another way, the task changed or was dropped, or a corrected version is about to be asked. It also names the precondition (status must be 'pending'), so the agent knows when the call will fail.

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