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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the call is free, it flags the job and messages the owner directly, and the agent should wait without committing to an answer. That covers side effects, cost, and the async nature of the interaction. It does not describe what comes back or how long a response takes, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is organized as trigger examples, motivation, and a closing behavioral instruction. It is somewhat lengthy and the persuasive tone (Guessing is the thing to avoid here) costs a few words, but nothing is truly redundant.

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 four-parameter escalation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: cost, what the tool does behind the scenes, and how long the agent should hold off. The absence of any statement about the returned result or expected latency keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, and the schema already explains token/orderId provenance, the urgency enum and its misuse warning, and the guidance to use the human's own words for question. The description adds only illustrative examples of what counts as an unanswerable question, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource (hand a question to a human at the shop), and the title 'Ask a person, instead of guessing' reinforces the escalation semantics. This is clearly distinct from siblings like submit_job, check_order, or get_capabilities, which handle deterministic operations rather than human routing.

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?

The description gives an explicit and vivid trigger condition — use it the moment you are asked something you cannot actually know — followed by concrete examples (food safety, colour matching, load tolerances, price/deadline changes). It also preempts the obvious hesitation by stating calling is free and always the better move. It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives, but since this is an escalation path rather than a competing query tool, the guidance is essentially complete.

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