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

Adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: bounded local deadline, terminal result handling, retry policy, and the native phone receipt requirement. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=true; the description enriches these 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?

Every sentence adds necessary information: purpose, conditional handling, polling instruction, success/retry semantics, and final stamp requirement. The description is dense but efficient, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 a complex orchestration tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the process, states, external dependencies, timeout behavior, and retry logic. Nothing an agent needs 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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description references external entities like question.id and install_url but does not need to explain parameters since schema coverage is complete and there are none to define.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Start or resume the onboarding Question'), identifies the resource ('private room the human chose during authorization'), and clarifies its role relative to wait_for_handoff. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its orchestration purpose.

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 conditional guidance: what to do when recipient_not_ready, when to call wait_for_handoff, and when to retry. It gives clear context on the workflow but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for the same scenario.

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