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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the open form updates live, the `note` renders as a banner, everything is submitted once, the call 'Returns at once' with answers arriving through the already-waiting call, and the failure mode after submission. It does not address idempotency or whether two appends can race, and it calls the operation 'read-only'-adjacent while mutating a live form, but because that state effect is explicitly disclosed an agent is not misled.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first clause, then usage, then mechanics; two tight paragraphs, no filler. Slightly dense for a definition of this length, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 tool with a rich 100%-documented nested schema, no output schema, and only two hints in annotations, the description covers the remaining gaps: state effect on the live form, return timing, where answers arrive, dependency semantics, and the post-submit failure path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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, and the description still adds cross-field meaning the schema does not state on its own: question ids must be unique across the whole interview (not just this call) and dependsOn may name any existing question, not only earlier ones in this call. The banner behavior of `note` is also clarified.

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 specific verb (append) and resource (follow-up questions to an interview that is still open) and immediately distinguishes the behavior from the obvious alternative ('instead of opening a second form'). An agent can tell it apart from ask_user_rich and await_user_answers without reading either 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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('after ask_user_rich returned status "awaiting"', 'while a backgrounded ask_user_rich / await_user_answers call is still waiting') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative for that case ('Fails once the user has submitted: then ask a new interview'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, but the description far exceeds that: it discloses that the call blocks for potentially minutes, that Claude Code continues it as a background task, the delivery modes, the fallback elicitation behavior, and that deferred/needs-info statuses must be acted on rather than assumed answered.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, routing, and per-question model come first, then return shape and id rules. The length is justified by the compound nested schema and absence of an output schema, though some schema details (allowOther default, preview) are echoed rather than newly informative.

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 complex nested interview tool with no output schema, the description fully documents the return contract (summary, per-question status, selected/ranked ids, other text, notes, recommendation-followed) plus the failure path. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: ASCII-only id rules with a concrete example, 'recommended takes option ids, not labels', and 'dependsOn may only name earlier questions' (display-only, no hiding). It adds the rank/quota semantics too, though it largely restates some schema wording.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (ask), resource (a structured interview / questions in a rich browser form), and behavior (wait for answers). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling-style alternative AskUserQuestion and lists the conditions that select it, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use criteria ('more than 4 questions or 4 options, long headers, markdown context, code/layout previews, or recommendations you want to argue for') and names the alternative it replaces. It also handles the degraded path: if the browser cannot open, show the URL then call await_user_answers — a named sibling.

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

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

Annotations already declare it a safe, non-open-world read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: it blocks/waiting is implied, it returns the same payload as ask_user_rich, and it short-circuits if the user already submitted. It omits timeout or failure semantics if the user never submits, which matters for a wait tool.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the pending-state condition is front-loaded before the return-value note. The parenthetical list of trigger conditions is dense but each item earns its place.

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, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly complete: it explains the return value equivalence to ask_user_rich and the early-return case. The only material omission is what happens on timeout or abandonment, which an agent waiting on a user would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents sessionId's origin and constraints, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the provenance (from ask_user_rich with delivery=link) but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (wait) and resource (a pending user interview submitted via ask_user_rich), and names the sibling tools it relates to, so the agent can distinguish it from ask_user_rich and append_questions directly.

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?

Enumerates the exact conditions that create a pending state (delivery=link, failed browser open, or an earlier call that stopped waiting), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' clause, but the trigger conditions are unambiguous.

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