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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing real side effects: notifying the automation's humans by email/Slack, or fanning out to a live ChimpHands session when attached. It also states a hard concurrency limit ('one open question per execution') and a payload convention ('put the recommended choice first'), none of which is in readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and context, and every sentence carries scope, side-effect, or constraint information. Slightly dense in the middle where context gating and delivery mechanics are packed together, but no filler.

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 7-parameter, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the definition leaves gaps: chimphandsSessionId semantics, botId/projectApiKey applicability, and crucially what the caller gets back and whether to wait or continue after submitting. The gating and delivery behavior are covered well, but the post-call contract 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?

Schema description coverage is only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the workflowExecutionId requirement and adds meaning to recommendedChoiceId ('put the recommended choice first'), but chimphandsSessionId and botId get no explanation, and the choices array shape/semantics are only implied.

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 and resource ('Ask the user a question with structured choices') plus the execution context that qualifies it (cloud agent, no live UI session). An agent can tell this apart from conversation-level asking and from sibling query tools like ask-about-testchimp without opening the 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?

Gives explicit inclusion criteria (cloud agent, no live UI session, requires workflowExecutionId) and explicit exclusions with an alternative action ('Do not call from a local IDE chat or when CHIMPHANDS_UI_ATTACHED is set — ask in the conversation instead'). The one-open-question-per-execution constraint is also stated.

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