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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the payload is signed, that humans may answer in any language, and that answers are CC0, but it omits important behavioral details such as question visibility, moderation, answer latency, or what happens with invalid signatures.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core action and payload example. The inline JSON is dense but earns its place by clarifying the payload format, and the licensing note is useful.

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 signed, nested-payload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the payload shape and licensing but does not explain the return value or point to the relevant get_signing_guide sibling for signing requirements.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds meaningful semantics by showing the expected payload structure with type, timestamp, and text, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Signed payload object' description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: registered AIs ask real humans a question. It distinguishes the action from siblings like get_answers and list_questions, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Registered AIs ask real humans a question,' which suggests registration is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no named alternatives such as get_answers for retrieving replies.

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