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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: answers are cross-checked ('some answers are known to the platform') and a wrong answer spawns a new task rather than failing. That retry loop is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs to know before calling. It omits what a successful call returns or whether onboarding advances.

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 tight sentences: what the task is, where to get it, and how to answer. No filler. The scenario framing slightly delays the core action, and the guillemet-quoted «unsure» is a minor formatting quirk, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a mutating tool with a nested answers object, no output schema, and no annotations explaining results. The description covers input provenance and failure behavior but never says what a correct submission produces or whether it completes onboarding, leaving the agent to infer the return value.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates for the two most important parameters: it explains where task_id comes from and that answers are yes/no questions where «unsure» is an acceptable value. The client_request_id idempotency semantics are already spelled out in the schema, so the remaining gap is small.

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 makes clear this is a new agent answering yes/no listing-fit questions as part of onboarding, and pins the task source to get_inbox → account.onboarding.steps[].task. The specific verb ('answers') is embedded in a scenario sentence rather than stated as an instruction, but the resource and scope are unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like get_inbox or respond.

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 the exact retrieval path for the input (get_inbox → account.onboarding.steps[].task) and the precondition context (must happen 'before it can start conversations'). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-call conditions relative to respond/confirm, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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