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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the key side effect: this consumes one question from the user's pass or purchased questions. It also explains cost exemptions (free with subscription or if already unlocked) and the 7-day eligibility window, which is exactly the behavior an agent needs before invoking a non-read-only, quota-consuming action.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the constraints following. The parenthetical cost conditions are slightly dense but each clause carries distinct pricing information.

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 single-parameter tool with full annotations, the description covers action, cost model, quota consumption, prerequisite, and time window. It does not say what is returned or what happens if the quota is exhausted or the 7-day window has lapsed, a minor gap given there is no output schema to rely on.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('The answer_id from the locked ask_lovly result'). The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond that, so the schema is doing all the work – the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get the full version of a locked ask_lovly answer') and ties it to the sibling that produced the input ('the locked ask_lovly result'). An agent can tell this apart from ask_lovly and buy_lovly_access without opening any 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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Only call this after the user has bought access') and a hard time limit ('within 7 days of the question'), which are real routing constraints. It stops short of naming buy_lovly_access as the tool to use when access has not been purchased, leaving that inference to the agent.

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