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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait — that the call returns a thread ID and the conversation is persisted — but says nothing about latency/blocking, cost, permissions, or failure modes. Too much is left unstated for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one piece of follow-up guidance. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only partially compensates by noting that a thread ID is returned. It says nothing about what the agent's answer looks like, whether the call is synchronous, or error/timeout behavior — gaps that matter for an agent-invocation tool with no annotations backing it.

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 agent, prompt (defaults to Micro, 8000-byte limit), and thread parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that (the thread-continuation detail is already in the schema's thread description), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Ask an agent" names a verb and a resource, but it is thin — it never says what kind of agent, what the agent does with the prompt, or how this differs from sibling agent_list. An agent can guess the general purpose but must infer the rest. Clear enough to be viable, not enough to be confident.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the siblings (agent_list, work_submit, inbox_*). The only usage-adjacent sentence, "Pass the returned thread ID to continue the saved conversation," describes post-call behavior rather than when to select this tool over another.

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