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 useful behavior: answers are private until publication, the token must be kept secret, and the response is either the next question or status=ready. It omits required auth context beyond token secrecy, whether an answer can be revised, and what happens on invalid/expired tokens.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The telegraphic 'Answer next_question.id' phrasing is slightly cryptic and requires the reader to map it back to the schema's question_id.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core flow and return states, which is more than nothing. It still leaves the answer payload semantics, token lifecycle/expiry, and post-answer state unaddressed, so it is only minimally 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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning. It clarifies question_id (the id of the next question), skip=true, and implies interview_token secrecy, but says nothing about the 'answer' field's content constraints or what interview_id identifies, leaving key parameters undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Answer next_question.id') and a distinct alternative mode ('set skip=true'), which separates it from read/publish siblings by noting answers stay private until publication. It stops short of naming a sibling or explaining the broader interview workflow, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'Answer next_question.id or set skip=true' and by the reference to publication ('stored privately until publication'), which hints the sibling interview_publish handles release. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative for the skip path beyond the flag itself.

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