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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent=false, and destructive=false; the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that. It discloses event structures, waiting up to timeout when none is there, a 50-event retention cap, and call-end expiration, giving the agent a clear lifecycle model.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the entire description is one long run-on sentence with nested parentheticals and inline event schemas. The detail earns its place, yet the lack of structure hurts scannability.

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?

Given an output schema and annotated safety profile, the description covers the key event types, wait behavior, and retention limits. It leaves gaps such as event ordering or whether returned events are consumed, which keeps it from 5.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the timeout range and the need for the same credential and helper_name, but adds no syntax, format, or failure semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('returns') and resource (answers to its own questions and related events) for a helper session not in the call. It names helper_decide in the question_check context, which helps distinguish retrieval from decision submission, though it does not explicitly contrast with helper_activity or helper_status.

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?

Provides clear context: use for a helper session that is not in the call, and mentions helper_decide for answering question_check events. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing among sibling retrieval tools, so it is not a 5.

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