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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it is a push delivery answerable from the lock screen or in-app, it blocks waiting on an answer, and rate limiting is disclosed. Annotations only indicate read/write intent, so this contextual information genuinely helps the agent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage pairing, then delivery/behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 11 parameters and nested objects, the description captures the essential interaction model: push, options, blocking, and rate limiting. The output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, so the remaining details like default Approve/Deny options and ttl behavior are already covered by structured fields.

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 of 3 applies. The description's mention of '2-4 tappable options' reinforces the options schema but adds little new meaning beyond what the input schema already documents for ttl, data, text_input, idempotency_key, etc.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Ask a person a question with 2-4 tappable options' and clarifies the follow-up blocking behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like wait_for_answer, request_approval, and broadcast without needing to inspect schemas.

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 workflow guidance with 'pair with wait_for_answer' and describes delivery and answer semantics ('first valid answer wins'). It does not enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives such as request_approval or broadcast, but the usage context is clear.

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