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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it doesn't say whether answers replace prior ones, whether the questions are returned first, or what completion looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, which is efficient. But the brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it earns a middling score.

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 mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and a nested parameter shape, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what a valid answer payload looks like or what happens on success.

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 0% across three parameters, including a nested answers array of key/value objects, so the description carries the full burden and fails to. It never explains the key/value structure, how keys map to questions, or what idempotency_key does, adding no meaning beyond the field names.

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 verb+resource ("answer the questions") and adds the scoping phrase "raised during source analysis," which distinguishes it from the generic sibling set. However, it never explains what these questions are, where they originate, or what an "answer" constitutes, leaving the core purpose only half-defined.

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 guidance on when to invoke this tool, what prerequisite state (e.g., a completed analysis) must exist, or how it relates to siblings like submit_declaration or declare_env_names. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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